# Ottawa forest hunting camps



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

http://www.upariver.net/


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

This story which was on Michigan out of doors is really difficult to understand why this is going to happen. There is no reason why this can't be handled as it was in Alaska. When the last living relative dies, then the lease is over or better yet, why not just leave them alone. It's not hurting anyone


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

The Feds always handle it this way, many such cases on the books ie. various National Forests, Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore, Delaware River Gap Waterway, etc , etc. The cabin owners had a lease for xx years, when the lease is up, they have to go......... Nothing new here and its been settled law for a looooooooong time...........


Its nothing personal, its just business.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Business I would think there is much more pressing business than to worry about so few who aren't bothering anything and are only guilty of using the area to hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors. And people wonder why things such as ruby ridge and other things happen. I'm by no means condoning violence over this but common sense is out the window on this


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

There are those who believe they are being denied access to public lands by squatters and trespassers.

They had 25 years to accept reality.
Jan 1 they'll have more help to do so.

This is not a fight between gov't and citizenry. 
It's the end of a lease, with all that entails.

To include cleaning up your mess.


----------



## JPK (Aug 11, 2014)

Yep. That's what it was, a lease. And the time is up. Really not that confusing.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Like no one ever lost lease hold improvements before now. LOL!


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I feel sorry for the guys who had this happen. They have all had decades to resolve it but it's not without pain. You can walk away or move the camp but there is a financial cost associated with it.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Not debating one bit that their lease is up. My point is that wouldn't it be great if the government found a way to accommodate these camps in some way to continue their traditions. I know how important camp is to my group and feel for these guys


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> Not debating one bit that their lease is up. My point is that wouldn't it be great if the government found a way to accommodate these camps in some way to continue their traditions. I know how important camp is to my group and feel for these guys


NO it actually would NOT be great if squatters remain on public lands. I have property for sale in the UP in a better spot than these camps are in, send them my way...............THEY WILL make new traditions in a NEW place !


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Midalake said:


> NO it actually would NOT be great if squatters remain on public lands. I have property for sale in the UP in a better spot than these camps are in, send them my way...............THEY WILL make new traditions in a NEW place !


Maybe you should read the information before you would call these people squatters. They pay for the land thru a lease. I'm sure if you lost your house or hunting property you wouldn't feel real good either


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Sorry Sparkster, I'm quite familiar with the whole arrangement.
My own people lost numerous camps as timber co. land changed hands and new owners didn't want the lease headaches.
Some of the leases were for 100 yrs, and no one ever thought they'd be voided through sale or bankruptcy. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I'm glad she made the video, but she's 30 years too late.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

Gamekeeper said:


> Sorry Sparkster, I'm quite familiar with the whole arrangement.
> My own people lost numerous camps as timber co. land changed hands and new owners didn't want the lease headaches.
> Some of the leases were for 100 yrs, and no one ever thought they'd be voided through sale or bankruptcy. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
> 
> I'm glad she made the video, but she's 30 years too late.


These people had year to year leases before the feds took ownership. What would they have done if UPPCO had decided not the renew the yearly leases? They had plenty of time to make other arrangements with the 25 year lease. Some people think they are entitled.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

T


petronius said:


> These people had year to year leases before the feds took ownership. What would they have done if UPPCO had decided not the renew the yearly leases? They had plenty of time to make other arrangements with the 25 year lease. Some people think they are entitled.


The point is. This doesn't have to happen. It has been done for 15000 others on federal land to continue their leases. There are alternatives if the government wants to help


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> T
> The point is. This doesn't have to happen. It has been done for 15000 others on federal land to continue their leases. There are alternatives if the government wants to help


Ok, what about the thousands of other people that would like the same deal? What makes the people losing the leases so special?


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Sometimes serving the public good isn't the same as serving your good.

They got an extra 25 years. That's enough of a settlement in my view.

I won't go so far as to say all the sites should be bulldozed and reclaimed. 
I'm more for removing the buildings and returning the lands to public use.

Knowing full well many of the groups will drag in semi permanent camps and try to run off every new visitor.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

petronius said:


> Ok, what about the thousands of other people that would like the same deal? What makes the people losing the leases so special?


It's called grandfather clause. Why do you want to hate on these people because you can't get this opportunity. Seems quite self centered and selfish to me.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

A


Gamekeeper said:


> Sometimes serving the public good isn't the same as serving your good.
> 
> They got an extra 25 years. That's enough of a settlement in my view.
> 
> ...


And many of these camps are left unsecured and have been used in emergencies. From what I have seen, these don't seem like the type of people who would run off anyone. I guess it's the old I didn't get to do this so why should they. Pretty self centered if you ask me


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

petronius said:


> Ok, what about the thousands of other people that would like the same deal? What makes the people losing the leases so special?


This isn't a new deal to start something new. So someone that isn't part of this is just plain out of luck. Not everyone gets the fruits of all opportunitys No one is prevented from using this land by these people being there


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> It's called grandfather clause. Why do you want to hate on these people because you can't get this opportunity. Seems quite self centered and selfish to me.


Grandfather clause? What does a grandfather clause have to do with a lease? A lease has a begin date and an expiration date. They are reaching the expiration date on the camps.
I don't have hate for them. It does seem that they are trying to gain through some form of adverse possession. They are getting too emotionally attached to property they do not own. So they have traditions of going to camp and many fond memories. I hope they took pictures.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

The govt could grandfather these camps with the clause being that they are not transferred or sold. Last remaining family member dies, then camp is done. You seem to,like to argue just for the sake of arguing sometimes, no matter what the issue is


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Sparky, if you think the public is in any way welcome to go traipsing through those camps, you have your head up .....

I'm starting to think I might donate some diesel to the Feds just for the clean up.

I don't believe in "Squatter's right's".

I'm not sure what part of the whole "end of the lease" thing is being so willingly over looked. It's as though the former leaseholders just decided to claim my property after their lease ended, expecting I wouldn't do anything to remove them. It's idiotic.
And it's gonna be expensve.

I'd put it out for bids, and send the leaseholders a registered letter with it enclosed. When they see the price tag, they'll leave. If they don't, sue, and attach their Fed tax returns.

Where are the Pinkerton's when you need them?


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> The govt could grandfather these camps with the clause being that they are not transferred or sold. Last remaining family member dies, then camp is done. You seem to,like to argue just for the sake of arguing sometimes, no matter what the issue is


Are the "family members" on the lease and how is "family Member" to be defined? Why do you think they should have a life estate to these camps?


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

petronius said:


> Are the "family members" on the lease and how is "family Member" to be defined? Why do you think they should have a life estate to these camps?


They pay taxes so this is not a freebie if that's what you think. I don't know if they are on the lease I am simply making suggestions for people who obviously love this area or they wouldn't still be there. It s done in national forest over 15000 times so what's another 100.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

I'm looking forward to camping right on that riverside public land.
Those kindly leaseholders are so inviting to strangers.
I sure they won't mind.

In all candor, there is less and less wild all the time, nationwide. There is tremendous and growing pressure to maximize public access. This situation is but one of many.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

27 miles of it and over 900000 acres of national forest to use. I'm sure you ll be fine but listen for the banjo s


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

In 1991 the lease holders were given an option to either vacate or sign a non renewable lease in 1992. Why would anyone of the remaining lease holders think they are somehow entitled to a lease extension? Would that be fair to the families who vacated in 1991 if they allowed the others to stay? Should those that left in 1991 be great grandfathered?


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

I just want to buy 1 private acre that backs up to Ottawa land. That's all I want!!


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Luv2hunteup said:


> In 1991 the lease holders were given an option to either vacate or sign a non renewable lease in 1992. Why would anyone of the remaining lease holders think they are somehow entitled to a lease extension? Would that be fair to the families who vacated in 1991 if they allowed the others to stay? Should those that left in 1991 be great grandfathered?


Obviously if they left. They left. I really cant believe how negative a few of your ae about this. Would it really bother you if these remaining 104 were able to stay for lets say another 25 years. To me its just a sad ending for many. Maybe you would feel that way if your camp ended but you probably dont have any friends that come to camp anyway so it wouldnt be much of a loss and maybe even an improvement for the neighboring property owners. Heartless.........


----------



## benster (Jul 31, 2006)

338bar said:


> A friend of mine has this problem. I need to give him most of the space in my truck for his stuff when we leave in the morning. He bought one of those headlamp lights to free up his hands when going to and from his stand. He also figured out a way to connect a couple of backpacks together. Just hope he never falls on back as he would never be able to get back up.


?


----------



## benster (Jul 31, 2006)

?


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Sparky I'm not heartless.
There's nothing in that situation I haven't been on both sides of at one time or another.

I'm not a big fan of thieves.
And make no mistake, the camp holders that won't vacate and clean up their mess, are stealing from the tax payer.

I'm looking forward to camping and fishing right on that river where some squatters will have had to be run off by next summer. The public resource I was previously unable to use will finally be available. Good fishing, good views, flat, cleared ground, with an access road. Maybe even a well and pump.

It's a shame some scofflaw tenants are going to stick us with the bill for their intransigence.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Gamekeeper said:


> Sparky I'm not heartless.
> There's nothing in that situation I haven't been on both sides of at one time or another.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of thieves.
> ...


They arent squatting. They have paid taxes every year. Look it up. No not a lot but have paid. They are responsible for removing the camps and us forestry is even offering to help with that. No access hs been denied to anyone except those that are in fear. So out of 900 thousnd acres and 27 miles of this river you are telling me that you couldnt use any of that land. I find that hard to believe but your wishes will probably come to fruation


----------



## benster (Jul 31, 2006)

Sparky do you have a camp there or know someone who does?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

sparky18181 said:


> Obviously if they left. They left. I really cant believe how negative a few of your ae about this. Would it really bother you if these remaining 104 were able to stay for lets say another 25 years. To me its just a sad ending for many. Maybe you would feel that way if your camp ended but you probably dont have any friends that come to camp anyway so it wouldnt be much of a loss and maybe even an improvement for the neighboring property owners. Heartless.........


If you feel that strongly you should buy prime river front property and lease it out for less than $0.96 per day for the next 25 years.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

[QUOTE="Gamekeeper, post: 5861739, member: 102623

It's a shame some scofflaw tenants are going to stick us with the bill for their intransigence.[/QUOTE]

"INTRANSIGENCE" WORD of the Day. LUV it. 

Other words that are apt for these shack squatters:

"Hubris" or "Tone Deaf" or "Dumber than a Box of Hammers"


----------



## JPK (Aug 11, 2014)

I watched the segment on t.v. last weekend. The lease is up!! Their only choices are to burn the structure, or disassemble it and haul it out. I feel bad for those two options. One even mentioned about moving the structure out. But no way that can be done because they cannot make any improvements to the access road ( more like a widened two track) narrow and a lot of exposed tree roots.. No heavy equipment to grade or widen the road or tree cutting. So only option pick up with trailer. That's the way I heard it. So , What do you do??? The lease is up! Did anyone ever think that the more you haul in over the years, the more you may have to deal with or haul out. But as stated prior, It's time. All they will have is fond memories. Best of luck to all of them.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Nothing wrong with melancholy feelings when it is time to leave deer camp for the season.
Here in this case it is taking camps structures out after a long run and removing signs of permanence where possible.
Unless some one is void of sentiment ; a sense of a time fading into the past must be involved and is understandable.
Fires following logging erased old camps from even earlier generations.
As part of a long history , documentation should be created to remember the camps ,and a time when civilians were encouraged to set up camps in the hinterlands.

Yep ,the leases are up. Following a change of ownership hands of the forest itself.
A Euro concept for sure but one with agreed to terms in the case of leases by these parties.

Agree or not with federal policies regarding keeping land unmarked by humans and reducing access , that's how the game is played these days. 
At least until the Federal powers see a financial profit to be gleaned from them from timber ,oil ,gas, or minerals ect...

A toast then: to the old camps and the hunters and the deer that cat and moused for generations under that elusive younger sky , where the forest seemed infinite ; as did the possibilities!
Too soon gone ,but long remembered.


----------



## JPK (Aug 11, 2014)

Well said Waif.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

benster said:


> Sparky do you have a camp there or know someone who does?


No I don't on either question.


----------

