Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: land ownership at mud lake

  1. #1
    Member JuliW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,189

    Default land ownership at mud lake

    I was recently looking at a map that shows land ownership - Hunt Map application for cell phones and computers... really cool little app, btw... In looking at the map, it shows mud lake (not just the parking area, but the lake itself) as being Eklutna land. Does anyone know if this is true? And if it is, have us 'non Eklutna' peeps been granted grandfather rights to access?

    The last time I was out there duck hunting I saw they had put up brand new signs....
    Curious more than anything...

    As much as I dislike the thought of losing access to a really fun area, I also understand and respect private property rights.
    Taxidermy IS art!
    www.alaskawildliferugs.com
    Your mount is more than a trophy, it's a memory. Relive The Memory!

  2. #2

    Default

    JuliW,

    Unless something major has just changed ......
    Eklutna has granted an easement to the lake (though I have truthfully never read it).
    Also the Eklutna Inc. boundary extends barely into the lake. You will likely not ever lose access to the KRPUA, Jim Swan wetlands at this point.

    After cleaning up and seeing/documenting garbage and pollutants dumped in those waters and on adjacent lands over the decades - add in the F&G violations, I would not blame Eklutna Inc. for revoking the access (if such is even possible).
    'Property rights' at that entrance have been far, far from respectful, leaving it a miracle 'we' in our worst incarnations can still go there.

    http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/krpua/pdf/...landstatus.pdf

    PS - somewhere I have map of better resolution/detail and will post if I get to it.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  3. #3
    Member sharps5090's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    36

    Default

    [QUOTE=68 Bronco;1441922]JuliW,

    Unless something major has just changed ......
    Eklutna has granted an easement to the lake (though I have truthfully never read it).
    Also the Eklutna Inc. boundary extends barely into the lake. You will likely not ever lose access to the KRPUA, Jim Swan wetlands at this point.

    I believe you will find that Eklutna Inc. didn't grant an easement......It was in place when they took possession of the land from the State.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sharps5090 View Post

    I believe you will find that Eklutna Inc. didn't grant an easement......It was in place when they took possession of the land from the State.
    Thanks ..!
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  5. #5

    Default Easement Update

    http://www.adn.com/article/20141204/...ation-easement

    Apparently, Eklutna Inc. does yet have a hand in the access. From my perspective, this has potential to be a very good development - more oversight for a valuable, yet long abused area.
    Folks need act respectfully out there.

    Now if DNR and F&G could just stem the tide of machines assaulting anadromous waters they are supposed to be managing in the area ....................

    See USFWS data on the Knik Watershed for in depth info.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  6. #6

    Default

    There is a article in the ADN to day about Mud lake.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Bend View Post
    There is a article in the ADN to day about Mud lake.
    Correct - link posted here 18 hrs. ago.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  8. #8
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Software changes at the job prevent me from viewing online records at BLM or DNR mapping websites. If I recall correctly the last time I looked at the survey plat of ADL 206989 - the easement for the extension of Maud Road - it showed a leg off to Mud Lake to provide access from the road to the lake shore. This survey was finalized prior to the BLM conveyance of the land to Eklutna/CIRI. I know that the basic data is shown on Status Plat 17N 3E Seward Meridian. I think the actual survey boundaries of ADL 206989 are also located on the master plat for the conveyance survey, but I have no way of seeing the files on the screen or searching it correctly through the BLM's spatial mapping system.

    Since its a public easement that predates their ownership of the land how will they be able to charge a fee for access permits?

  9. #9

    Default

    Just to be clear - I am not privy to the details. All those will be forthcoming, no doubt.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  10. #10
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    Found some data on AK DNR site. The easement included on the conveyance deed to Eklutna does not contain a legal discription for a spur off the maud road extension of ADL 206989. Still cannot find a plat of the easement. The BLM conveyance documents are not always complete, but they provide legal standing. Based on this deed Eklutna owns the Mud Lake boat launch. However, tresspass law from the 1890's comes into play since they have allowed public access across their land since day one without control. I see a court battle coming. But if they make improvements and build a boat launch facility with safe parking and outhouse facilities charging a fee is in line with public recreation user systems. If they leave it like it is and charge a fee well, that may not fly.

    Link to recorders office data. click on the "see image" button in the upper right to see a poor quality scan of the deed and its map. There are three easements within the property. One is Maud Road, the other is a foot trail off the road to Burnt Butte, and the other is the trail along the Knik.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat Su
    Posts
    306

    Default

    The tresspass laws mentioned above are RS2477 easements? Sort of a muddy area for the State DNR, and they (the State) seem to be a little reluctant to really put some effort in cataloging these existing trails. I guess we'll see, but think this will go to court if anyone opposes the requirement to have (pay) for a permit to access Mud Lake through the existing "boat launch". I think the last couple of sentences below apply here. I think.

    In general, this statute:
    * identifies DNR as manager of these routes, unless transferred to DOTPF;
    * acknowledges that there may be other qualifying routes not yet identified by the project;
    * indemnifies the state from liability resulting from a person's use of an RS 2477 right-of-way;
    * outlines procedures and restrictions for vacating RS 2477 rights-of-way.
    In addition, the legislative act mandated the recordation of the 602 routes listed in the bill as qualifying RS 2477 rights-of-way.
    The Department of Natural Resources has begun to record the surveyed RS 2477 routes and those crossing large parcels of land held by a single landowner. DNR also notified over 8000 owners of smaller parcels (those within the Fairbanks North Star Borough and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs) that it was planning to record rights-of-way crossing over their parcels. Public outcry from concerned land owners has curbed those plans. Last year the Department raised concerns about recording unsurveyed RS 2477s across small tracts of land owned by private individuals, and although the Legislature chose not to act on the Department's concerns, Commissioner Shively intends to discuss this issue with the Legislature when it reconvenes next January. The Department does not plan to record routes that cross smaller private parcels this year.
    **Whether or not an RS 2477 route is recorded, the right-of-way still exists and encumbers the property it crosses. The original RS 2477 route may be re-routed or eradicated only through an easement vacation process. By statute, the Legislature must approve an application to vacate an RS 2477 if no reasonable, comparable alternate right-of-way or means of access exists. However, if an alternate means of access exists, then the state may approve the vacation**.

  12. #12

    Default

    I welcome improved stewardship at these locations.
    The list of abuses is long, Very ugly, and well documented - never seen so many stupid people in one concentrated 'recreation' area. What kind of **** fool would dump 26 lead acid auto batteries over the bank in a feeder spring to the lake - just one example of many recorded dirty deeds.
    Access will remain - chalk it up to 'manifest destiny'.

    (I do greatly appreciate having access there.)
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat Su
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 68 Bronco View Post
    I welcome improved stewardship at these locations.
    The list of abuses is long, Very ugly, and well documented - never seen so many stupid people in one concentrated 'recreation' area. What kind of **** fool would dump 26 lead acid auto batteries over the bank in a feeder spring to the lake - just one example of many recorded dirty deeds.
    I think most agree on this. Amazes me the length some will go to to save a buck. These are the same guys that like to have pallet bonfires in boat lauch parking areas, leaving a pile of nails and broken beer bottles......people with no respect or consideration for anyone but themselves. Pretty common nowadays..

  14. #14
    Member ak_cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    I wonder who is going to enforce the boat launch permit, same guys who enforce the trespass shooting range 50ft away?

  15. #15
    Member greythorn3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Chasin the ladys! away!
    Posts
    2,507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DAllen View Post
    I think most agree on this. Amazes me the length some will go to to save a buck. These are the same guys that like to have pallet bonfires in boat lauch parking areas, leaving a pile of nails and broken beer bottles......people with no respect or consideration for anyone but themselves. Pretty common nowadays..


    i pick up nails and broken beer bottles in campfires all summer long in the knik river beach area where i ride atc. it makes me mad people have so little respect for others, id hate for my kid to get cut playing in the sand or lose a 3 wheeler tire when out riding because of these selfish fools.
    Semper Fi!

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greythorn3 View Post
    i pick up nails and broken beer bottles in campfires all summer long in the knik river beach area where i ride atc. it makes me mad people have so little respect for others, id hate for my kid to get cut playing in the sand or lose a 3 wheeler tire when out riding because of these selfish fools.
    Agreed. Sure can't let kids run barefoot on the dunes or play in Jim Cr. or in the lakes w/o considerable risk. Those days are long gone.
    All the glass and metal - bad for the dogs , too.

    I don't like seeing small pleasures like these diminish either.
    "Punish the monkey - let the organ grinder go" - Mark Knopfler

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat Su
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_cowboy View Post
    I wonder who is going to enforce the boat launch permit, same guys who enforce the trespass shooting range 50ft away?
    While I dont think enforcing a boat launch permit (controlled by a private entity) would be something that they would do, I have seen Troopers out there about the last 4 times I've gone to that area. I dont know if they are ticketing for shooting outside of the range area, but I've definately seen them chatting with people who are shooting in the "non designated" areas.

  18. #18
    Member Dupont Spinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,425

    Default

    Just like all Native lands ADN news article says that a permit will be needed to access boat launch. ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat Su
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Whil I am sure I don't know all the details surrounding this issue, I do know that I am concerned with the blocking of access to public lands. It's a big problem in the western US and is becoming a concern here. I wrote my senator to express my concerns:


    Honorable Senator Huggins,

    I am writing you in concern for an issue that may appear before the Alaska Legislature during this upcoming session.

    I’m not sure if you are familiar with State access issues surrounding the RS2477 easements, specifically to the “Lakes” area of the Knik River Public Use Area (KRPUA) which was formalized several years ago.

    The issue I’d like to bring up concerns the use of an access to the Mud Lake portion of this unit. There is a “boat launch” on the eastern shore of Mud Lake, which is owned by the Eklutna Native Corp. Recently, a news article was published describing a conservation easement that the Eklutna Native Corp entered into with the Alaska Great Lands Trust. The article mentioned that the public would be able to continue use of this boat launch but only after a permit was issued to the individual user by the Native corporation.

    To my understanding, the laws regulating access to public lands in Alaska, governed by this RS2477 easement, grants access to public lands that are historical easements across private lands. The boat launch on Mud lake has been in use since my arrival to Alaska in 1989, and am sure it was in use long before my arrival. I’m concerned that the Native corporation is going to try and enforce restricted/paid access to this very popular recreation area. The area is pretty heavily used by hunters during the moose and waterfowl seasons, and is also used by non consumptive users who canoe, skate etc…. throughout the year.

    The State does have a exisiting RS2477 easement in this area, referred to as the “Rippy Trail” in the KRPUA, but the easement does not reflect the “spur” that goes to this boat launch area (as far as I can find in my research of this issue).

    Although “unrecorded easements” still encumber private lands….as described in the excerpt below, I’m concerned that there may be an attempt to limit access to this area. This area is one of the very few large waterfowling areas left in the Anchorage Matsu areas, and I’m very concerned that we could potentially lose access to an area that many folks get a great amount of enjoyment from.

    In general, this statute:
    * identifies DNR as manager of these routes, unless transferred to DOTPF;
    * acknowledges that there may be other qualifying routes not yet identified by the project;
    * indemnifies the state from liability resulting from a person's use of an RS 2477 right-of-way;
    * outlines procedures and restrictions for vacating RS 2477 rights-of-way.
    In addition, the legislative act mandated the recordation of the 602 routes listed in the bill as qualifying RS 2477 rights-of-way.
    The Department of Natural Resources has begun to record the surveyed RS 2477 routes and those crossing large parcels of land held by a single landowner. DNR also notified over 8000 owners of smaller parcels (those within the Fairbanks North Star Borough and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs) that it was planning to record rights-of-way crossing over their parcels. Public outcry from concerned land owners has curbed those plans. Last year the Department raised concerns about recording unsurveyed RS 2477s across small tracts of land owned by private individuals, and although the Legislature chose not to act on the Department's concerns, Commissioner Shively intends to discuss this issue with the Legislature when it reconvenes next January. The Department does not plan to record routes that cross smaller private parcels this year.
    **Whether or not an RS 2477 route is recorded, the right-of-way still exists and encumbers the property it crosses. The original RS 2477 route may be re-routed or eradicated only through an easement vacation process. By statute, the Legislature must approve an application to vacate an RS 2477 if no reasonable, comparable alternate right-of-way or means of access exists. However, if an alternate means of access exists, then the state may approve the vacation**.


    I would appreciate you looking into this matter and seeing if a solution can be made to secure this access to our public lands.

    Thank you for your time

  20. #20
    Member JuliW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Palmer, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,189

    Default

    Thank you so much for taking the time to write to Charlie Huggins. And thank you for posting all the information as well.
    Taxidermy IS art!
    www.alaskawildliferugs.com
    Your mount is more than a trophy, it's a memory. Relive The Memory!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •