Also: what dipshit set up this system in the first place? It’s an obvious exploit when dividing land up into a checkerboard. They could have put a 20x20 foot diamond at each corner that is of shared use by the owners of all surrounding plots. If one owner is the public, then the corner is public.
Maybe they just assumed corner crossing is such an obviously right way to handle things that it didn’t need to be spelled out specifically.
Yeah, but not over one yard of trespass.
Well, in a way they’re right. If you take a hardline position on trespass, then the landlocked square becomes de facto privately owned by the surrounding owners. And that would make those plots significantly more valuable. One yard of trespass opens the square up to the public, though, and the landowners would lose that benefit. I have a hard time seeing that argument hold up in court, though.
The “corner crossing” problem was not even considered when the government set up this system to incentivize the railroads:
The American West’s Great Checkerboard Land Ownership Problem | Essay.
Probably someone who didn’t know that the land was so unproductive that the property lines would look the same in 150 years.
It sounds like it’s terrible out there.
But be mindful of the small landowner who is subjected to people crossing their land to get to these public lands.
ATVs and dirt bikes tear up the land. Hunters on side by sides throw their trash everywhere. Shoot towards my house. I have actual bullet holes.
We have vine pullers camping on these public lands if they can figure out what side of the fence is public and which side is not. I’ve had them fishing/bathing in my pond which I promise you is not close to the fence.
One side of my land is state owned and technically public but it’s designated a research area and fully posted. They don’t care. They see public land on a map and just carry on with their activities.
Everyone would like access to America’s public lands and no one wants to respect them.
No one wins that way.
Sure, absolutely. But we are talking here about one yard at a corner. No ATV, etc.
What is a ‘vine puller’?
We back up to National Forest. About once a year, we have either x-country or snowboarders coming through our property. They get down to the road below our house, and are lost. Either their ride can’t find them, or they didn’t think that far ahead. I give them a ride back up to where they came from, top of the continental divide.
The vine pullers are migrant farm workers who have run out of harvesting or field work jobs. They still have time on their work visas. To make money they pull kudzu vines. They climb high in trees and cut with a machete type thing. The guys below(ranging from: men, women and kids. They are usually family groups) pull the vine down rolling them up in big rings. They sell them to some company that turns them into decorations.
They camp in ramshackle campers or tents. Eating no telling what.
We don’t generally mind them being around, in areas not exactly on top of us. Less kudzu helps everyone.
What we don’t like is them taking advantage. They are not adverse to begging. Some probably steal.
They can leave giant messes, so we’ve quit letting them camp on our property.
It’s perfectly legal for them to pull vines on public land and private property that have given the ok. And they do understand “No trespassing” signs. Doesn’t mean they honor them. Or know where boundaries start.
Crossing my property by 100ft or 10 ft is still crossing my property.
You give an inch and they’ll take a mile, every time. I’ve been dealing with this many years. It never fails to amaze me what people will do on my property they would never do on their own.
We actually considered putting a porta-potty out in the woods. I kid you not.
Someone’s romantic interlude in my pond is not pleasant to think about, but I’ve seen it.
But this thread is about corner-crossing and you are bitching about what non-corner-crossers do on the property you own. You are implying, I think, that if there is traffic around your property that your property will be trespassed; if there is no destination that requires someone to be near your property, it more than likely will not be damaged. So if corner-crossing is made illegal no more ills for you?
Small update on the US Court of Appeals case: After the group The Rich and Selfish Assholes of Montana, oops, the United Property Owners of Montana filed an amicus brief in favor of keeping corner crossing illegal (can’t even use the airspace above private property - you better not swing your arms over my yard as you walk by on the sidewalk), four other groups filed briefs against this bullshit.
The rich, selfish assholes have filed their reply to ruling they didn’t like.
This is my favorite quote from the article:
Cry me a fucking river! I have a house on a corner lot with a lot of young folks in the neighborhood. You know how many times youngsters run on my property when the family is out for a walk? Should I be outraged and call the cops on them? Do private land owners out in the boonies have greater expectations of privacy on their property than the greater majority of land owners with properties in city limits? I actually experience property damage due to dog shit on my property. What damage occurs for those hunters and hikers walking these corners? This continues to piss me off so much.
The damage that matters is to the property values, not to the property. It’s as simple (and as a$$holic) as that.
Have they demonstrated that allowing corner crosses really does anything to their property values?
Right now, they are trying to restrict that section of public land to just them. They can charge huge amounts to do guided trophy hunts on these public lands since they are the only ones that can legally access. If, when they sell their land, they are not only selling the land they own, but the sole rights to that public property, it would greatly increase the value of their private property. They are basically arguing that since they own the land around that section of public property, they should have sole rights. The fact that they are trying to stop folks from dropping into these sections via aircraft shows they want to keep it their personal “public” land.
Exactly. We are in complete agreement.
The total economic value of owning that land, under current practice, includes the surrounded public land. And not by accident; that’s exactly why they bought it that way. And the value is much more the ongoing revenue stream for hunting than the value of dirt for cattle raising or timber or …
They bought the land knowing it included that “feature” They’re struggling mightily to keep it. That’s greedy and evil, but it’s also bog standard business practice and IMO nothing to be surprised or outraged about.
Sounds like they need to put in a clearly-marked path, then, if they consider that a problem.
Sorry if it seemed like I was thinking you were on their side.
I live in an area where these public sections of land exist and I’ve done corner crossing. It used to be an acceptable practice and I think it’s still semi-OK (I know of places where it is very evident it happens due to fence stiles). I just don’t want these WY rich assholes to succeed and to have this spread to other states.
The Washington Post has a new article our about the upcoming corner crossing case. Sorry, it is hard to access their articles without a subscription, but here is the link if you are able:
This topic still pisses me off. Land rich ranchers (and often, flat out rich ranchers like the douchebag in the middle of this case) want to keep the public out of public lands to increase their private paradises. Here is a money quote for one of the rich assholes:
Still, she also faults the Missouri hunters for not having “any respect for private property rights.”
Fuck off. These rich people don’t have any respect for public property. They feel that allowing the public access to public lands will devalue their private land and I think that is true: If the public land is inaccessible, they’ve basically doubled the size of their private property. Of course it will be worth more!
Good.
I just skimmed the judgment and man, there’s a long history here, with case law going back to 1885. It sounds like a case of immovable object vs. unstoppable force. On one hand, property owners own the near airspace above their property. On the other hand, you cannot fully enclose federal public lands. One of those two things must give. The tiny airspace violation from the corner crossing is what gave.