Anyone have any info on this?

Would this be any ammo for us too use against the Route Designation project? If what I am reading is correct, RS 2477 would mean that the forest service could not shut down ANYTHING....right?

This link was very interesting reading for me:

http://www.jeep-l.net/access/news/blm/ca_blm_hdmuc.html

http://www.rs2477roads.com/2settled.htm


A SELECTION OF QUOTES FROM COURT DECISIONS
AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY



Revised Statutes 2477 (R.S. 2477) states, in its entirety:



"Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." 8 of the Act of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 253, later codified at 43 U.S.C. 932.

This statute has been interpreted innumerable times over the 130 years since its passage by state and federal courts and by the Department of Interior. These interpretations have consistently outlined fundamental, core principles which have guided its application over the years. In particular, the statute has been applied universally by reference to state law. Furthermore, the definitions under state law of terms such as "highway" and "construction " have always been honored. In recent years, there has been a growing effort to ignore or twist these clear precedents. A major recent example is the regulations proposed several years ago by the Department of Interior. Even a casual review of the precedent outlined here demonstrates conclusively that they do not provide a fair treatment of this legal history and the definitions which were relied upon for the 110 years that the offer under RS 2477 was open. The following outline provides just a few quotations from the vast body of administrative and court-made law and the legislative history of this statute.



I. THE ROLE OF STATE LAW:



Early federal regulations stated:



This grant [R.S. 2477] becomes effective upon the construction or establishing of highways, in accordance with the State laws, over public lands not reserved for public uses. No application should be filed under this act, as no action on the part of the Federal Government is necessary. 56 I.D. 533 (May 28, 1938).



These regulations were retained, virtually unchanged, for 110 years:



No application should be filed under R.S. 2477, as no action on the part of the Government is necessary. . . . Grants of rights-of-way referred to in the preceding section become effective upon the construction or establishment of highways, in accordance with the State laws, over public lands, not reserved for public uses. 43 C.F.R. 2822.1-1, 2822.2-1 (October 1, 1974)(See also, 43 C.F.R. 244.54 (1938); 43 C.F.R. 244.58 (1963).



In 1986, the Department recognized its duty to honor prior, valid existing rights:



A right-of-way issued on or before October 21, 1976, pursuant to then existing statutory authority is covered by the provisions of this part unless administration under this part diminishes or reduces any rights confered by the grant or the statute under which it was issued, in which event the provisions of the grant or the then existing statute shall apply. 43 U.S.C. 2801.4 (February 25, 1986).



Supplementary information supplied by the Department stated:



It was not the intent of the proposed rulemaking, nor is it the intent of this final rulemaking, to diminish or reduce the rights conferred by a right-of-way granted prior to October 21, 1976. . . . In addition, if questions should arise regarding the rights of a right-of-way holder under a grant or statute, the earlier editions of the Code of Federal Regulations on rights-of-way will remain available to assist in interpretation of the rights conferred by the grant or earlier statute. . . . In carrying out the Department's management responsibilities, the authorized officer will be careful to avoid any ction that will diminish or reduce th erights conferred under a right-of-way grant issued prior to October 21, 1976. 51 Fed.Reg. 6542 (February 25, 1976).



The Department also recognized the role of state law when making representations to the courts:



The parties are in agreement that the right of way statute is applied by reference to state law to determine when the offer of grant has been accepted by the "construction of highways. Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior of United States, 634 F.Supp. 1265, 1272 (D. Colo. 1986) (citation omitted).



State courts have also been consistent in their treatment of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way:



Under this act [R.S. 2477] highways could be established over public lands not reserved for public uses while they remained in the ownership of the government. Congress did not specify or limit the methods to be followed in the establishment of such highways. It was necessary, therefore, in order that a road should become a public highway, that it be established in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was located. Ball v. Stephens, 158 P.2d 207, 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945).



It has been held by numerous courts that the grant [under R.S. 2477] may be accepted by public use without formal action by public authorities, and that continued use of the road by the public for such length of time and under such circumstances as to clearly indicate an intention on the part of the public to accept the grant is sufficient. Lindsay Land & Livestock v. Churnos, 285 P. 646, 648 (Utah, l930).



By this act [R.S. 2477] the government consented that any of its lands not reserved for a public purpose might be taken and used for public roads. The statute was a standing offer of a free rights of way over the public domain, and as soon as it was accepted in an appropriate manner by the agents of the public, or the public itself, a highway was established. Streeter v. Stalnaker, 61 Neb. 205, 85 N.W. 47, 48 (1901).



Federal courts have concurred:



The salient issue is whether the scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way is a question of state or federal law. . . . Especially when an agency has followed a notorious, consistent, and long-standing interpretation, it may be presumed that Congress' silence denotes acquiescence: "[G]overnment is a practical affair, intended for practical men. Both officers, lawmakers, and citizens naturally adjust themselves to any long-continued action of the Executive Department, on the presumption that unauthorized acts would not have been allowed to be so often repeated as to crystallize into a regular practice. That presumption is not reasoning in a circle, but the basis of a wise and quieting rule that, in determining the meaning of a statute or the existence of a power, weight shall be given to the usage itself,--even when the validity of the practice is the subject of investigation." United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 472-73, 35 S.Ct. 309, 312- 13, 59 L.Ed. 673 (1915).. . . The perfection of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way admittedly is a different issue [from] its scope. However, all of the above-cited cases concern the conflict between an alleged R.S. 2477 right-of-way and a competing claim of right to the land. The cases subsume the question of scope into the question of perfection; and indeed a critical part of many of the state law definitions of perfection included the precise path of the purported roadway. Having considered the arguments of all parties, we conclude that the weight of federal regulations, state court precedent, and tacit congressional acquiescence compels the use of state law to define the scope of an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. Sierra Club v. Hodel 848 F.2d at 1080, 1083. (Citations omitted.)



***



Ordinarily, this expression of intent [by the state legislature] would constitute valid acceptance of the right-of-way granted in Section 932. That section acts as a present grant which takes effect as soon as it is accepted by the State. . . . All that is needed for acceptance is some "positive act on the part of the appropirate pugblic authorities of the state, clearly manifesting an intention to accept . . . ." Wilderness Society v. Morton, 479 F.2d 842, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1973), (quoting Hamerly v. Denton, Alaska, 359 P.2d 121, 123 (1961); citing also Kirk v. Schultz, 63 Idaho 278, 282, 119 P.2d 266, 268 (1941); Koloen v. Pilot Mound Township, 33 N.D. 529, 539, 157 N.W. 672, 675 (1916); Streeter v. Stalnaker, 61 Neb. 205, 206, 85 N.W. 47, 48 (1901)).



"Under R.S. 2477, a right-of-way could be established by public use under terms provided by state law." Sierra Club v. Hodel, 675 F.Supp. at 604. "Whether the roads have been established under the provisions of R.S. 2477 is a question of New Mexico law." U.S. v. Jenks, 804 F.Supp. 232, 235 (D.N.M. 1992). "Whether a right of way has been established is a question of state law." Shultz v. Department of Army, U.S., 10 F.3d at 655.



II. STATEMENTS OF THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF STATE LAW



The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, commenting on "more than four decades of agency precedent, subseqent BLM policy as expressed in the BLM Manual, and over a century of state court jurisprudence" on this issue:



The adoption of a federal definition of R.S. 2477 roads would have very little practical value to BLM. State law has defined R.S. 2477 grants since the statute's inception. A new federal standard would necessitate the remeasurement and redemarcation of thousands of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way across the country, an administrative duststorm that would choke BLM's ability to manage the public lands . . . . That a change to a federal standard would adversely affect existing property relationships squarely refutes Sierra Club's allegation that the use of a state law standard unfairly prejudices the federal government. R.S. 2477 rightholders, on the one hand, and private landowners and BLM as custodian of the public lands, on the other, have developed property relationships around each particular state's definition of the scope of an R.S. 2477 road. The replacement of existing standards with an "actual construction" federal definition would disturb the expectations of all parties to these property relationships. Sierra Club v. Hodel, 848 F.2d at 1082-1083.



***



FLPMA admittedly embodies a congressional intent to centralize and systematize the management of public lands, a goal which might be advanced by establishing uniform sources and rules of law for rights-of-way in public lands. The policies supporting FLPMA, however, simply are not relevant to R.S. 2477's construction. It is incongruous to determine the source of interpretative law for one statute based on the goals and policies of a separate statute conceived 110 years later. Rather, the need for uniformity should be assessed in terms of Congress' intent at the time of R.S. 2477's passage. Id.




III. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN PASSING FLPMA



Debate leading up to the enactment of FLPMA, on a predecessor bill, addressed R.S. 2477 specifically. This bill contained the same terms which were later incorporated into FLPMA, providing that "All actions by the Secretary under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights" and providing for the repeal of R.S. 2477.



Senator Stevens, of Alaska, expressed concern that rights to "de facto public roads" established across public lands and roads "that through tradition, through usage, through the passage of time, in fact, have become public access roads or highways" would be jeopardized by the repeal of R.S. 2477. 120 Cong. Rec. 22283-22284 (1974). Senator Haskell, of Colorado, speaking in favor of the legislation (S-424), stated: "if a strip of land is being used for a highway over public land in accordance with State law at the time of enactment of this bill, then that grant of right-of-way is preserved by reason of section 502 of the bill." Id. at 22284.



There can be no question that Congress intended, when it passed FLPMA, that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way be interpreted in accordance with state law. In an attempt to "make sufficient legislative history," Senator Haskell referred specifically to state case law, stating:



I am referring now, if the Senator would like, the citation is Koloen versus Pilot Mound Township, I believe it is, 33 North Dakota 529, it says:

"To constitute acceptance of congressional grant of right-of-way for highways across public lands there must be either user sufficient to establish a highway under the laws of the State, or some positive act proper authorities manifesting intent to accept."

In other words, a use or some positive act of proper authorities manifesting intent to use. This is the way I would apply this one-sentence statute [R.S. 2477] enacted in 1866: either there is a an actual existing public use, or there is a manifest intent which could be put into action by an application to the Department of the Interior, and they would say "yes." In other words, it is a two-way proposition. Id.



It is also clear that it was an essential condition of the BLM "organic act" that the full rights under R.S. 2477, as well as other rights, were to be preserved. Senator Haskell, in support of the predecessor bill, said "I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the various users of the natural resources lands -- and these people include those who graze cattle, it includes people who mine, it includes people who use public lands for recreation -- that none of their rights or privileges are being adversely affected." Id. at 22280.



It is also clear that Congress understood that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way would not be limited to "significant" roads:

MR. STEVENS. Would the Senator from Colorado agree that if a State has accepted an obligation to maintain a road or trail, if it has partially constructed or reconstructed it, or has indicated an exercise of its police authority by virtue of posting signs as to the speed limits, for example, which demonstrate it is a public highway - if the State has taken actions that would normally be taken by a State in furtherance of its normal highway program, and those roads were on such a right-of-way public lands, would the Senator agree that we have no intent of wiping those out, but those would be valid, existing rights under the one-sentence statute the Senator mentioned previously?



MR. HASKELL. I agree with the Senator 100 percent. Id. at 22284.



Furthermore, in response to a concern about "existing roads and trails from village to village" and about "dogsled trails," Senator Haskell stated:

I am not familiar with dogsled trails, but let me say I agree with the Senator that so long as the intent was for public use, then the right-of-way was established at that time under that 1866 act. Id.



A review of that debate can leave no doubt that Congress intended R.S. 2477 rights to be exercised fully in accordance with state law after the passage of the BLM "organic act."



IV. FLPMA EXPLICITLY PROTECTS PRIOR VALID EXISTING RIGHTS

The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) states:



Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this act. FLPMA 701(a), 43 U.S.C. 1701 note (a).



All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights. FLPMA 701(h), 43 U.S.C. 1701 note (h).



Nothing in this title [43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq.] shall have the effect of terminating any right-of-way or right-of-use heretofore issued, granted or permitted. FLPMA 509(a), 43 U.S.C. 1769(a).


V. DEFINITIONS OF "HIGHWAY" AND "CONSTRUCTION"



In Colorado, the term 'highways' includes footpaths. Simon v. Pettit, 651 P.2d 418, 419 (Colo.Ct.App. 1982), aff'd, 687 P.2d 1299 (Colo.1984). "Highways" under 43 U.S.C. 932 can also be roads "formed by the passage of wagons, etc., over the natural soil." Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Alameda County, 284 U.S. 463, 467, 52 S.Ct. 225, 226, 76 L.Ed. 402 (1932). The trails and wagon roads over the lands which became part of the Colorado National Monument were sufficient to be "highways" under 43 U.S.C. 932 [R.S. 2477]. 634 F.Supp. at 1272.*



"The term highway is the generic name for all kinds of public ways, whether they be carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, bridges, turnpike roads, railroads, canals, ferries, or navigable rivers." Bouv. Law Dictionary, Rowle's Third Rev. p. 1438, Tit. Highway; Elliott, Roads and Streets, p. 1; 25 Am.Jur, 340. Parsons v. Wright, 27 S.E.2d 534 (N.C. 1943)



A highway is commonly defined as a passage, road, or street which every citizen has a right to use. . . . A highway includes every public thoroughfare, "whether it be by carriage way, a horse way, a foot way, or a navigable river." Summerhill v. Shannon, 361 S.W.2d 271 (Ark. 1962).



"Roads" and "highways" are generic terms, embracing all kinds of public ways, usch as county and township roads, streets, alleys, township and plank roads, turnpike or gravel roads, tramways, ferries, canals, navigable rivers . . . . Strange v. Board of Com'rs of Grant County, 91 N.E. 42 (Ind. 1910).



Highways, as they were originally developed, were for the convenience and easy passage of persons on foot, on horseback, in vehicles drawn by horses or oxen, and also for the transportation of commodities by the same means. They were open to unrestricted use by all persons. City of Rochester v. Falk, 9 N.Y.S.2d 343 (1939)



The word "highway" as ordinarily used means a way over land open to the use of the general public without unreasonable distinction or discrimination, established in a mode porvided by the laws of the state where located. Lovelace v. Hightower, 50 N.M. 50, 168 P.2d 864 (1946).



Travel and transportation of goods by wheeled vehicles is not the only use to which a highwya may be put. One walking or riding horseback, or transporting goods by pack horse, over a way which the public is constantly using , is a use of such a way as a highway. Hamp v. Pend Oreille County, 172 P. 869, 870 (Wash. 1918).



"User is the requisite element, and it may be by any who have occasion to travel over public lands, and if the use be by only one, still it suffices." Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior, 634 F.Supp. 1265, 1272 (D. Colo. 1986).

Return to INDEX

Interesting terminology: USFS Final Rule...(regarding RDP)


In 1997, as part of the Interior Appropriations Bill, Congress passed legislation that specifically forbids any Federal agency to develop a final rule or regulation regarding RS 2477 Rights-of-Way.

Title 1, Sec. 108. states, "No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal Government pertaining to the recognition, management, or validity of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932) shall take effect unless expressly authorized by an Act of Congress subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act".

This 2477 stuff looks to be key, but seems we will need lawyering to enforce it. There's got to be lawyers on PBB somewhere. Calling all the sharks!!!

The (knuckle)head of the forest circus needs to be slapped with a cease and disist(?) order, since he's the one that started this whole thing. Cut off the head, and the body will die. We need to make this RDP BS die.

RS 2477 is problematic when you are talking about Forest Service managed lands.

RS 2477 specifies that "rights-of-way" are preserved for lands not otherwise reserved as of 1976.

99.999% of Forest Service lands were "reserved" prior to the 1976 date.

The best option for RS 2477 assertions lies with BLM managed federal lands. Even then, there are numerous hurdles to clear before an assertion can be validated.

John

Can you define "reserved".

I have heard before the Forest Service lands are different. What makes them different.

Rick

Reserved is the legal term used to designate uses for federally controlled lands.

Military reservations are "reserved" for military use.

Forest lands are "reserved" as part of the national forest system (formerly called national forest reserves).

When congress enacted statehood for the western states, certain sections were reserved for state lands. Same with the railroad act and a few others.

In simple terms, congress assigns tracts of public lands to categories; i.e. "reserves" those lands for the designated use.

The phrase "not otherwise reserved" in RS 2477, means that lands not designated for other uses (reserved) by congress are open to entry via right-of-way.

The only difference with forest lands is the effective date. Most all forest lands were established as part of the national forest reserves when the FS was created around 1898. Hence, in order for a route to potentially qualify as RS 2477, it would need to be in existence prior to 1898. Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477.

In short, RS 2477 is a very complex issue that is drawing a lot of legal attention. The Utah Associations of Counties is the leading 'authority' on the legal issues with RS 2477 as they have been testing the actions in the courts and in the political venue.

For additional complications, check out the various homestead acts.

So basically...

RS 2477 gives us absolutely NO help in fighting the Route Designation process.

Welp, that blows. :shaking:

Unless we can prove that it was there before 1905.....

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/

Bebe,

1905? I thought John said 1898; there is little difference between the two, but I'm again confused. I did try your link and read the short blurb on 1905. What's the difference John and Bebe.

Rick

The USFS said 1905 on their website posted above.....:confused:

Where did the 1898 come from? Its 7 years, but that might make all the difference in some cases.

Bebe

Reread John's post #7 above for the 1898 date.

John Wrote:
"The only difference with forest lands is the effective date. Most all forest lands were established as part of the national forest reserves when the FS was created around 1898. Hence, in order for a route to potentially qualify as RS 2477, it would need to be in existence prior to 1898. Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

The conflict between 1905 and 1898 is what I was questioning. Perhaps John will enlighten us.

John,
If you read this can you also clarify "Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

Rick

Bebe

Reread John's post #7 above for the 1898 date.

John Wrote:
"The only difference with forest lands is the effective date. Most all forest lands were established as part of the national forest reserves when the FS was created around 1898. Hence, in order for a route to potentially qualify as RS 2477, it would need to be in existence prior to 1898. Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

The conflict between 1905 and 1898 is what I was questioning. Perhaps John will enlighten us.

John,
If you read this can you also clarify "Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

Rick

I did read it, but had read before that the Forest Service website says 1905. I'm confused as to why we would question their own website?

John Wrote:
Most all forest lands were established as part of the national forest reserves when the FS was created around 1898


Established in 1905, the Forest Service is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service manages public lands in national forests and grasslands.

Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service, summed up the mission of the Forest Service— "to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run."

National forests and grasslands encompass 193 million acres of land, which is an area equivalent to the size of Texas.

And
When and why was the Forest Service established?

Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation's benefit. Over the years, the public has expanded the list of what they want from national forests and grasslands. Congress responded by directing the Forest Service to manage national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation. Multiple use means managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment.

National forests are America's great outdoors. They encompass 193 million acres (aprox. 78 million hectares) of land, which is an area equivalent to the size of Texas. National forests provide opportunities for recreation in open spaces and natural environments. With more and more people living in urban areas, national forests are becoming more important and valuable to Americans. People enjoy a wide variety of activities on national forests, including backpacking in remote, unroaded wilderness areas, mastering an all-terrain vehicle over a challenging trail, enjoying the views along a scenic byway, or fishing in a great trout stream, to mention just a few.
Hopefully he can elaborate.:D

one problem I see with RS2477 is that I believe we must show on a goverment printed map that the road existed prior to the land becoming resevered by the forest service. I do have the 1898 map for the eldorado nation forest area and some others, there are very few roads and trails listed on these maps. 95% of all the roads in existance today have been put in since then

Widwun

Do you have a Tahoe map that old available? Since there were so few maps at that time, it maybe that any land map maybe of help. There are Plat maps from mining claims available, county offices, title companies, etc.

I also look to this as a self-educational process to help inform others. For example look at the beginning of this thread and all the hope espoused there and what little it is now boiling down to.

I also personally think that RS2477 is of very little use during this process, but who knows!

Rick

Bebe

Why would I question the FS's own web site - I always question government, that is my/our job as citizens. Unfortunately it is our job as citizens to self-educate, the government won't do it for us.

I question everything until I am satisfied with the answers, 1905 vs. 1898 is small but may have a very good story behind it in legal terms.

Forest Service in 1905? Perhaps Forest Reserves in 1898? May make a difference I don't know!

Rick

I do personally have several origional maps dating to the late 1890s for the western Sierras. I have the Placerville, Pymamid peak, and Jackson as well as a few others that I cant remember the names. they are all 30 minute maps so they cover about the area of 16 7.5 mintue topo maps. they were produced origionaly by the government to study timber reserves, they do have towns, roads and some trails listed on them as well as elevation lines. I will look at them this weekend when I get home to see of what use they may or may not be.

Prior to the US Forest Service was a period where the forests were brought into a federal 'system' for 'management'.

I have a book ('Crossing the Next Meridian') that does provide a little background on the history.

The USFS became an official agency in 1905. There was a period of a few years before that where forest reserve (or preserves) existed with little federal oversight.

Hence, the 1898 year is a benchmark that refers to the land being placed in a 'reserved' status.

John,
If you read this can you also clarify "Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase, the lands acquired by the US were designated territories and later granted statehood. (Note: Texas is a distinct case in that it came into statehood via being a 'free republic'.)

When statehood was granted, certain sections of "federal lands" were transferred to the state. For example, the California Statehood Act conveyed Sections 16 and 36 of every township to the State to support public schools.

Hence, you will see where the State (California) Lands Commission holds land in 'trust' for schools. An example is the State Lands Commission holdings in Truckhaven. There are examples of this in Utah.

IF Sections 16 and 36 were already in private ownership, the State of California was allowed to select other federal lands for the state inventory. The state was allowed to delay its selection of encumbered lands. Much of Anza Borrego Desert Sate Park was acquired in this fashion.

In addition to the statehood acts, were the the Railroad Acts which transferred certain section of federal lands in ownership by the railroads. Again, if the specific section were already in ownership other than federal government, "in lieu" selections were granted. Hence, the railroads own vast tracts of land in the forests and deserts.

The key phrase in RS 2477 is "...public lands not reserved for public purposes..." very important. To qualify as RS 2477, there are many ownership title issues to consider.

From what I have been able to determine, California still maintains some 'in lieu' selection rights to transfer federal lands to state lands.

I have posted a critical review on RS 2477 as is applies to a route in Coyote Canyon of the Anza Borrego Desert State Park. It provides more detail and can be viewed at:

http://www.muirnet.net/NoteTaker/rs2477.ntweb/?1

Welp, that explains it alright.

Sorry I haven't picked up on how to do all the quoting stuff, so my comments will be in Bold. I and “MS Word” have also taken the liberty to correct a few left out words or typos of John's.

Prior to the US Forest Service there was a period where the forests were brought into a federal 'system' for 'management'.

I have a book ('Crossing the Next Meridian') that does provide a little background on the history.

The USFS became an official agency in 1905. There was a period of a few years before that where forest reserve (or preserves) existed with little federal oversight.

Hence, the 1898-year is a benchmark that refers to the land being placed in a 'reserved' status.

Great I now understand the 1905 & 1898 dates. Thank You.

John,
If you read this can you also clarify "Even then, if the land title is mixed with lands open for transfer to the state via statehood act or to the railroads via one of the railroad acts, it is out of contention for RS 2477."

Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase, the lands acquired by the US were designated territories and later granted statehood. (Note: Texas is a distinct case in that it came into statehood via being a 'free republic'.)

When statehood was granted, certain sections of "federal lands" were transferred to the state. For example, the California Statehood Act conveyed Sections 16 and 36 of every township to the State to support public schools.
I will have to look up the California Statehood Act sometime. It would seem the idea of an education for everyone is an old and well-founded principal.

So when a "Territory" such as Nevada or California became a "State" the land within the newly formed state borders did not necessarily become state property(just 2 sections per township) if I understand this correctly. I understand the "Schools" and "Railroad" lands thing, they both have traded sections of land and that explains why the schools of today "own" land other than school campuses. I understand that private property was in existence before a new state formed around it and thus it was excluded from becoming state property. What I am having trouble understanding is why did not all the remaining Federal "territorial" property/land not transfer over to State ownership upon being accepted into the "Union". This has to have something to do with why we in the western states have BLM and the Forest Services "Managing" lands within our borders. Occasionally I talk to some Easterners and they can't understand why we have all this vast Federal open land that is not privately owned or "State" owned. How did the Federal Government retain so much control over the land in the western states? I'm not saying I would like it any other way, the eastern states have little vast open land, public or private left.

Hence, you will see where the State (California) Lands Commission holds land in 'trust' for schools. An example is the State Lands Commission holdings in Truckhaven. There are examples of this in Utah.

IF Sections 16 and 36 were already in private ownership, the State of California was allowed to select other federal lands for the state inventory. The state was allowed to delay its selection of encumbered lands. Much of Anza Borrego Desert Sate Park was acquired in this fashion.

In addition to the statehood acts, were the Railroad Acts, which transferred certain sections of federal lands in ownership by the railroads. Again, if the specific section were already in ownership other than by the federal government, "in lieu" selections were granted. Hence, the railroads own vast tracts of land in the forests and deserts. Particularly along the I-80 corridor here in Northern California and Nevada.

The key phrase in RS 2477 is "...public lands not reserved for public purposes..." very important. To qualify as RS 2477, there are many ownership title issues to consider.

From what I have been able to determine, California still maintains some 'in lieu' selection rights to transfer federal lands to state lands.
I'm not sure I want the State to control more land, it seems to do such a poor job with the CA OHV Commission. State Parks and State Wild & Scenic Rivers are more controlled than Federal National Forests and BLM Land. I'm speaking as a Northern Californian - the south may be different.

I have posted a critical review on RS 2477 as is applies to a route in Coyote Canyon of the Anza Borrego Desert State Park. It provides more detail and can be viewed at:

http://www.muirnet.net/NoteTaker/rs2477.ntweb/?1
I will click and read.

Thank You John!