6M Acres of Public Land in the US West Are Corner-Locked
onxmaps.com
onxmaps.com
No idea if this sets any sort of precedent. I suspect not, given how much of a quagmire all of this is.
[1] https://www.wyomingnews.com/rawlinstimes/news/prosecutor-see...
http://www.buffalobulletin.com/news/article_8b1117bc-254e-11...
>Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent.
The civil case is in Federal court so will establish precedent.
http://adamwong246.github.io/blog/18-Memories-of-Totality/in...
This is likely because if they stop enforcing them, they can lose it. If they allow people access as a matter of course, after some time in many places this will create a public right to access, which they can no longer restrict. This creates a real, material loss to landowners.
These people deserve to get smacked down in court, and I hope they get fucked with the legal fees. They're misers, and contribute nothing to society.
This seems like there’s some shenanigans going for landowners who want to avoid property taxes by only buying part of public land.
I don't see why you need to change the narrative to be "OH WOE IS ME, THEY TOUCHED THINE PUBLIC, but pissed on thine private a bit". That can be charged with evidence.
People MAYBE doing a crime is not a crime, and is a fucked up premise for you to persue, I'm disappointed in you.
I hate to break it to you - the govt can define walking paths and public lines.
It's going to be difficult to hold anything resembling a conversation with someone that seems to have missed the key points of the article, if it was read at all. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Do you want to fuck people up before they commit a crime? DO YOU WANT TO CHARGE TRESPASSING BEFORE THEY TRESPASS?
Several civil rights movements have logged in to see what happens next.
It's an article worth reading, that's all I'm saying.
Yes that is one of the bad reasons. Put up "private property" posts or similar. If you have such an enormous plot of private land that you cannot manage to enforce a stranger sticking their toe out onto it, and you for some reason really need to enforce to that extent-- that is on you. Consider scaling down your private property.
As for hunting on private property, that seems to a separate issue from the concept of landlocked public land. That's practically a guns issue. Anyway, that doesn't give private property owners dominion over public land.
In fact, I didn't read of a single good reason.
I live within walking distance of a lake. We take frequent walks there. If I so much as touch the water with my big toe, I could get a ticket/citation. If I insist, I could be arrested. If I jump into the water (even wearing a floatation vest), same thing. You are only allowed to be in the water while lifeguards are present, and only for a few seconds if you fall off your paddleboard or something like that. If you are walking along the shore with water up to your ankles, lifeguard or not, you could be cited.
No, this is not a source of drinking water at all.
Every time I go to the lake I have the same thought: So much for "land of the free".
Note: Yes, of course, I understand this is mostly because people have sued and extracted money from the State/County, etc. That's likely the root cause. The solution isn't to ban everyone.
Yes, paddleboards are allowed. Kayaks too. No power boats. Don't ask, I don't have the answers.
I can tell you I have seen people do truly stupid things on the lake. Like load-up a canoe with people and ice chests and go into the lake when they obviously have no clue what they are doing. We've been kayaking this lake for 25 years. I wear a vest every time. And I am an excellent swimmer with open water experience. If you don't respect water, you die, it's that simple.
Once you get to the point where everyone is a victim despite their stupidity, the only option left is to restrict absolutely everyone to the extent possible. That's the way I see this may have evolved. I don't know.
> Or perhaps you are mistakenly under the impression
Not the case. We've been using the lake for 25 years. I know most of the lifeguards, including the director of the department. They know me well because I used to get into the lake on my kayak with a dry-suit in full-blown Santa Ana winds. In other words, over the years, they came to understand it was unlikely they would have to rescue me or my kids.
Anyhow, one day I was there with my German Shepherds just hanging out, walking on the beech. The director of the lifeguards just happened to be on the patrol boat on duty that day. He came over to say hi and very clearly told me something akin to "You know, Martin, I could site you and even arrest you for getting your feet into the water anywhere in this lake". That led to something like "You have to be fucking kidding me". "No, I am not". And then we had a conversation.
He didn't like it any more than I did. Now that I remember, he did make mention of people drowning and lawsuits. I'm pretty sure that's the genesis of the regulation. While I can't find the rule in writing, I recall having seen a document with this information (this was probably 15 years ago).
The lifeguard has police authority?
So long as the legal system allows leeches to extract money from the state because they slipped on a rock that was underwater, and so long as the county doesn't see any point in spending the resources to vigorously fight or counter-sue, yes that is unfortunately the only solution.
The idea that so much land is privately owned and shut off to everyone else seems downright dystopian to me.
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-ri...
And when they're called out on it? SLAPP type suits.
This is all about slapping down those who think money can alleviate law.
The catch is "corner crossing" -- stepping diagonally OVER the property boundary from public land to public land, avoiding the ajoining private parcels. However, it's legally ambiguous in some areas whether you are violating the "air rights" of the private lands as your foot glides over them without ever actually setting foot on the dirt.
In Norway this would all be obviated by the "right to roam" law that states that anyone may move freely through privately owned land so long as:
- It is uncultivated
- You don't leave any mess/trash
- You don't stay more than one night if you camp
However, "attractive nuisance" has gone pretty far, at least here in California.
edit: I think the parent commenter edited their comment, but I'll leave mine as-is.
If it can happen when a thief breaks into your house and breaks his leg.. it can happen in the woods.
Of course: depending on state, etc.
People who live in rural and semi-rural areas in the US are mostly pretty chill in general with people respectfully using their property, especially at the edges, in my experience.
This is a non-sequetor and is most cettainly false.
A house is hypothetically meant to be safe, woods are not - you could be eaten by a bear.
Scenario B is the most common scenario in that you shouldn't have to be worried about stepping on nails or tripping over things if you go to your local ikea.
Scenario A is more state-by-state, but at least in my state (Georgia), you can "imply invite" people onto your property for something as small as having an opening in a fence on your land, or a beaten pathway that seems to be frequented by dirt bikes - this is why 'no trespassing' signs are commonplace, so that you know that the property owner does not invite you onto their land and thus any injuries are at your own expense.
But, since this is about Wyoming, let's see...
https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2016/title-34/chapter-1...
As a non-lawyer, I'd say they have no liability. As a landowner, I'd never personally chance it, but I would see if I could give a 6' portion of the land to the state/federal government.
But this is definitely one of my pet theories as to the litigiousness of America - healthcare is exceptionally expensive and in theory someone gets stuck with the bill, so when someone (especially someone without insurance) gets injured the game begins.
I saw it personally on an uninsured friend who's arm bones were broken into pieces by a car wreck through no fault of his own. He was put back together pretty well, but to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
There are other reasons to sue for injury, but it would be nice to think that they aren't so the injured person is able to escape bankruptcy from medical debt.
Just because I'm curious: could you parachute in? From a plane flying high enough to be in public airspace.
Equally as frivolous as suing people for trespassing on public land
Too often those who benefit from the status quo masquerade under a pretense of helplessness while using their position to place a toe on the scales.
I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
The hunters who used a ladder to corner-cross in Wyoming now face a civil lawsuit from the owner of the private land whose airspace they stepped through, in addition to the original criminal trespass charge. Their criminal case, currently set for April 14th, will take place in a local court and therefore will not establish legal precedent. However, on March 31st, a judge ordered for their civil case (that is, the one brought by the landowner) to be moved to federal district court, where the outcome could serve as precedent in future cases. Whatever comes next, this legal gray area could very well remain clear as fog for decades to come.Any evidence for that happening here?
I’m curious though, are you in the category of benefiting non-landowner? Or coming to their defense in the name of something else?
This is what you asked me.
I think perhaps you intended to ask me something else.
The answer to that question is 'yes' and I gave you an example of such. Were the Montana rancher to press charges for corner-crossing, based on his stated reasoning, I don't think that would be ill will.
You didn't specific any restrictions on which situations apply or do not apply to your question.
I'm sure most landowners aren't POS and most do not. But this guy did, and gave the hunters a big fine and a big legal challenge because they were in his "airspace" for no more than a couple minutes. Which is why we need a codified law, so hunters and campers don't even have to worry about this in the future.
Bad summary. The private land owners didn't create this checkboard mess, the government did.
OK, I can understand inaccessible public land; it's unpleasant but not directly infringing anyone's property rights. But how the owners of the private parcels within the checkerboard pattern even access their land? Passage through public land may be impossible because other private land stays in the way.
I suppose some agreements between land owners exist for passage. Similar agreements can likely apply to general public.
How did the original land planners miss the idea of having 15-20 ft of public land between private parcels, to allow building a road later on, escapes me. It's a great example of how little intellectual effort, even of the common-sense type, is often expended on questions of a colossal consequence.
There probably isn't real demand or funding to build a road. In Michigan, a lot of the roads used for land access are maintained when a timber harvest needs the road and then very little otherwise.
I generally hate eminent domain. But this seems like a good application - allow a 10' path/road as access.
These motherfuckers are trying to just take land by buying the surrounding squares Civ 6 style.
They can all rot in court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor...
Fuck this guy.
UK footpaths only work because the footpaths themselves long predate the legal system that enforces private property rights in the UK. There are no established footpaths in the US that predate US property rights, mainly because European colonists simply ignored the existence of indigenous peoples land claims. But the US legal system generally considers the issue of indigenous land rights a resolved issue (even if the indigenous peoples would beg to differ). So there’s no dispute you could use to create the universal concept of public footpaths on private property in the US.
Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference
with land which is in the immediate and exclusive
possession of another"; it is both a tort and, in
certain circumstances, a crime under the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994. It is not necessary to prove
that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead
actionable per se. While most trespasses to land are
intentional, the courts have decided that it could
also be committed negligently. Accidental trespass
also incurs liability.
Peacefully walking over someone's land to get from A to B will not result in criminal prosecution
The problem is less prevalent farther to the south.
My understanding is that some land owners have had some degree of success purchasing additional pieces of land and trading them with the BLM to make their own property more contiguous.
In any case, I see posters here assuming that the land owners like this situation... but I know for a fact that many don't and would prefer their property not be discontinuous.
For this kind of privacy you go to Wyoming or Montana for--- think more along the lines of: "No stranger without an expectation of getting shot at can see me at my home." The property you use is surrounded by a large buffer zone that no one should ever be in and the nearest part of that buffer zone is so far from any of your structures that they can hardly be seen from it.
This isn't to say that the corner cross itself is the problem. The people complaining about the corner crossings presumably don't want people entering the islanded public land that takes them deep into their property. Because then you've gotta worry if someone lurking around in that land is just using it peacefully, or if they're gonna cause you trouble. (which can also be accidental, like starting a wildfire or an errant gun shot from hunting hitting something you care about).
Another way to look at is like this: The price of a bay area home (say $2m) can buy you 2000 acres in Montana. At those sorts of prices it's completely reasonable to purchase a bunch of surplus property for no other purpose than preserving your isolation, access to nature, and piece of mind. Why be a NIMBY when you can just own all the property where third-party activity might adversely impact you? If you've gone to that trouble, then it's understandable that you might be be irritated by people invading that privacy-- particularly when they have to technically trespass to do so.
Otherwise, we will get more inaccessible public beaches, like Vinod Khosla is currently holding hostage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/08/califor...
With this system and the laws around trespassing, how could any of these parcels of land been legally accessed? They would have had to cross a number of plots to arrive on a plot designated to the property owners.
If this vast area of land was laid out as a grid of land and there are millions of acres of public plots inaccessible, wouldn’t it follow that there is a similar issue with private plots?
I’m sure a lot of this has been solved overtime with easements for roads, but when it was originally laid out I’d think that the vast majority of plots were not legally accessible as you’d have to cross over someone else’s plot to get there.
More context on the specific case in question. From Sep. 2022.
I feel like ALL land subdivisions should only be legal if an easement for access is provided.
You might want to reread TFA, the explanation seemed simple enough to me. And it isn't what you apparently think.
I'm sure the landowners have other concerns, some of them more legitimate than others.
The more interesting question is why the sheriff is colluding with them to enforce this, since the men were not apparently caught in the act of stepping over the corner. Rather the sheriff is using their state powers to provide security for a wealthy private citizen's misuse of public lands, and using the corner locking as a loophole to treat citizens on public lands as presumed trespassers. That seems like a more interesting story.
It's also why every citizen should be paying at least some tax, not just the wealthy.
> Their trial, set for mid-April, will decide if they trespassed when they passed through that private airspace.
What's the problem here?
Like if I broke into Walmart and road a purple bike around while shooting stuff with a flamethrower, I don’t get to say “but no purple-bike-intrusion-arson-law exists”
Do you agree with chopping up land like this so that it is inaccessible to the public? That's the discussion we are having.
And you can be tired of it, and call it cynical, but unfortunately it is actually history. Police were literally created to protect the interests of the wealthy slave owners.
https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/origins-m...
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2021/12/08/the-history-of-...
The policing crisis we are facing today has a large component that is rooted in police serving the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-...
The USA has a very dark history that has informed today's society, and I'm delighted we are finally beginning to address this despite the pushback from conservatives who want to keep the status-quo and hide history by controlling textbooks and eliminating or re-writing history education.
Now back to the topic. This lawsuit is very important, and I hope it leads to positive change.
I'm not sure it's very important, how many does it affect? I still do hope for a positive outcome that gives people access to these public lands though.
But that doesn't work either as apparently land owners also own the air above their land. Sadly, no sarcasm tag here.
Not sure why that’s surprising. If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground.
Land ownership kinda has to include air rights above it, last I checked, humans aren’t capable of existing in a purely 2D space.
Corner-crossing is obviously an odd place where geometry and reality collide to produce some very odd results. But just because this specific edge-case make air right look silly, doesn’t mean that air right are a bad idea. In the vast majority of situations air right accurately reflect people’s common understanding of property rights.
Seems like they could just say "nothing touching the ground can impede on my property." But I concede the point to you.
My first thought (and why I was mentioning sarcasm) was because there's a ton of air traffic above private property all the time. But then I read into it a bit after reading your response and it looks like the legal definition is "air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land."
OK, so the 747 above my house is likely fine. But why about the tiny prop plane flying over head to take pictures of my property? Or the obvious drones? It looks like they generally say anything above 500ft - 1000ft is not owned, depending on congestion. So drones are out but that annoying guy in the plane taking pictures to try to sell them to me is still allowed.
“Landowner Views on Corner-Crossing
There are many reasons that private landowners want corner-crossing to remain off-limits, but we’ll cover just two common concerns here.”
The first concern is that it would be a violation of the fifth amendment’s “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The second is that it’s hard enough to prevent people from trespassing on one’s land, and allowing them to cross these corners would make that worse.
(I’m not claiming these are strong arguments, just that the article does mention them)
I don't hunt. But if I owned one of these properties, I would probably be equally annoyed by it. A bunch of people, with guns? One trips and falls into your property, accidentally shooting someone? Yup, you get sued, and potentially lose your property.
Intentionally buying up land that perfectly surrounds public land on all sides really betrays what's actually going on here.
https://www.rkmlaw.net/who-is-liable-for-accident-on-easemen...
>For all other types of easements, however, including property usage rights granted to a neighbor or private party, maintenance remains the property owner’s legal responsibility. If the easement does not involve a public utility company, therefore, the landowner will be liable. Otherwise, the utility company will be liable. However, if the granted party damages the property, he or she is legally obligated to restore it to its previous condition.
Throw in some reasonable guardrails regarding proximity to residences, intent, etc., and call it a day.
Somewhere, the people that established this are sitting comfortable while everyone else is suffering under the weight of their absurd decisions.
Billions have been spent because of this stupid rule/mindset.
The linked article has a section titled "Landowner Views on Corner-Crossing" that shows the landowner's point of view. To summarize the 2 points:
- It's the principle and landowners don't want their property rights eroded further.
- Corner crossers are often misbehaving bad actors. If no one's watching these people are likely to not just corner cross but actually violate private land. There's lots of quotes from a landowner about hunters shooting deer on private property.
(This is my summary of the points from the article, not my opinion)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bwaldg/__14.html
so there is no "trespassing" in "forests".
I'm amazed "landlocking" even is a thing.
"private secret bases" do not exist, not legally, and given the density probably neither secretly.
why should they?
It probably is a good thing that 6M acres are land-locked...
But for the record, I think that land-locked public land should be off-limit to anyone (aka, stay pristine).