Qualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and

Qualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and water rights in the western US, for what it's worth. Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up. Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.