Corner Crossing and Efforts to Legalize it in the Midwest/West

[Nutterbuster]

All this is why I hunt the crap out of property lines. One in particular that's shared with a guy who thinks because he owns something valuable he matters more.

I'm sorry, but I have no love for people who are "within the law" and just "looking out for theirs."

 

[Jammintree]

I’m so glad I live in and hunt states with open land laws.

 

[GCTerpfan]

I’m so glad I live in and hunt states with open land laws.

I assume by open land laws you mean that unless a property is posted it is open to the public? That is such a foreign concept to me that I don’t think I could actually get myself to hunt private property I didn’t expressly have permission on. I would feel guilty, even though it was legal.

 

[thedutchtouch]

Lots of good discussion, particularly @GCTerpfan thanks for your professional expertise.


As far as the value goes- it seems like a few people are saying that the landowner is justified to gatekeep in order to derive additional land due to locking other people out. I take issue with this. The government created a situation where land borders are not sustainable, and the assumption of control over something that's not your, but next to yours, and therefore your land is more valuable... Is quite the mental gymnastics to allow a landowner to steal from all of us. They already have the "I live next door" value bump, they don't get the "I control the public land" bump that they seem to think they deserve.

Are there some landowner's that may be negatively impacted by loss of value as they were sold on the idea that they could control public land by living next to it, possibly, but that detail is immaterial to me. it stands to reason that this is an issue where the rights of the many should outweigh the possessions of the few, in my opinion.

 

[Jammintree]

I’ve not yet listened to the podcast. Is this public land that was traditionally used for open grazing livestock?

 

[GCTerpfan]

Lots of good discussion, particularly @GCTerpfan thanks for your professional expertise.


As far as the value goes- it seems like a few people are saying that the landowner is justified to gatekeep in order to derive additional land due to locking other people out. I take issue with this. The government created a situation where land borders are not sustainable, and the assumption of control over something that's not your, but next to yours, and therefore your land is more valuable... Is quite the mental gymnastics to allow a landowner to steal from all of us. They already have the "I live next door" value bump, they don't get the "I control the public land" bump that they seem to think they deserve.

Are there some landowner's that may be negatively impacted by loss of value as they were sold on the idea that they could control public land by living next to it, possibly, but that detail is immaterial to me. it stands to reason that this is an issue where the rights of the many should outweigh the possessions of the few, in my opinion.

I don’t think anyone is saying the landowner is justified to to keep people off of the public land in order to increase the value of the land.

But, the landowner is under no legal obligation to allow people to cross his land and the law is pretty clear that you own the air space above your land.

You are correct that the government created this situation and they have remedies at there disposal to correct it but, private landowners aren’t obligated to correct it for them

 

[thedutchtouch]

I don’t think anyone is saying the landowner is justified to to keep people off of the public land in order to increase the value of the land.

But, the landowner is under no legal obligation to allow people to cross his land and the law is pretty clear that you own the air space above your land.

You are correct that the government created this situation and they have remedies at there disposal to correct it but, private landowners aren’t obligated to correct it for them

You're right, my reading comprehension was lacking, I though the right to exclude was talking about from public not from private next to public. I think the only person who may be making that argument is Kyle in post 31.

I also don't fully understand easements, I thought they could be forced, not that they have to be granted. I suppose the govt could build us all a series of bridges that went 250 feet up on public before crossing the corner and coming back down. Obviously ridiculously expensive and terrible idea

 

[GCTerpfan]

You're right, my reading comprehension was lacking, I though the right to exclude was talking about from public not from private next to public. I think the only person who may be making that argument is Kyle in post 31.

I also don't fully understand easements, I thought they could be forced, not that they have to be granted. I suppose the govt could build us all a series of bridges that went 250 feet up on public before crossing the corner and coming back down. Obviously ridiculously expensive and terrible idea

easements have to be granted…..unless they are taken…. or acquired prescriptively…..or adversely or…….

Don’t worry property rights are a complex issue. It’s one of the reasons they fascinate me.

 

[will4554]

"No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided,This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith."

43 USC 1063, if anyone wants to read it themselves. That is the relevant portion of the statute the hunters are using as a defense, I italicized the part that I think they lose on. The ranch is not "obstructing free passage or transit over or through public lands." They are simply maintaining their exclusive rights over property that they improved and occupied in good faith under the current laws. If the hunters used a helicopter or hot air balloon then they'd probably win, a ladder seems unlikely. I'd like to see the areas accessible, but I just don't know how that happens without imminent domain being used to gain access. And even if these hunters win, that only matters in the District of Wyoming, it wouldn't affect public access anywhere else. This is a fascinating topic honestly and the decision is going to hinge on the interpretation of a law from 1885.

 

[Nutterbuster]

Apologies for what may be a slight derail, but I think it's tangentially related to the issue being discussed.

Below is an image of a parcel of public near me:



Red line outlines WMA. Green line is a dirt road which the state (and hunters) have an easement on. Yellow line is a road that borders a private club and the WMA and that the state does not have an easement on. Orange dots represent a swamp that cannot be crossed without chest waders. For scale, the map is about 3.82 miles long N to S. You're looking at about 1k acres of WMA property, with 80% or so inaccessible to the public for all intents and purposes. Can't access from the creek because it's not navigable (tried that, ended in tears). Can't access from the south without crossing a chest deep swamp and then slogging through a mile or three of titi bushes and switch cane.

The state doesn't have an easement. The private club is within their legal rights to deny the easement. But...the kicker is I've been back there and they treat that land like their club. Stands and feeders all over it, which is illegal. I've been back there 3 times and every time there are tire and boot tracks all over the sandy roads...and the tracks ain't from the WMA crowd.

I appreciate that the state holds the land along the watershed and protects it from development. I'm in favor of that. I understand that not all publicly-funded land can/should be open to the public. There's more value to a wild place than just its recreational value. There are other tracts of land that are state-held and taxpayer funded, and they're not accessible to hunting. They're held to protect a sensitive area. I support that.

What I don't support is a public property being used as a private club. I don't run the zoo, but if I did the rules would be simple. You don't have to grant the public an easement across your corner or down your road. But if we're playing the "I don't legally have to share" game...then the area is closed to all access and we're ticketing the holy hell out of you if you poach or trespass on it. The public doesn't have to share with you if you're not sharing with them. Quit being a welfare queen and if you want thousands of acres of private hunting land...pay for it. Or, grant an easement, and get the not-insignificant value increase of having a property that has easy access to more usable land that you didn't pay for.

This seems to easily solve the problem. Private landowners have increased value to their land, and the public isn't paying for something and then being told "that's not for you."

 

[Jammintree]

Apologies for what may be a slight derail, but I think it's tangentially related to the issue being discussed.

Below is an image of a parcel of public near me:

View attachment 82040

Red line outlines WMA. Green line is a dirt road which the state (and hunters) have an easement on. Yellow line is a road that borders a private club and the WMA and that the state does not have an easement on. Orange dots represent a swamp that cannot be crossed without chest waders. For scale, the map is about 3.82 miles long N to S. You're looking at about 1k acres of WMA property, with 80% or so inaccessible to the public for all intents and purposes. Can't access from the creek because it's not navigable (tried that, ended in tears). Can't access from the south without crossing a chest deep swamp and then slogging through a mile or three of titi bushes and switch cane.

The state doesn't have an easement. The private club is within their legal rights to deny the easement. But...the kicker is I've been back there and they treat that land like their club. Stands and feeders all over it, which is illegal. I've been back there 3 times and every time there are tire and boot tracks all over the sandy roads...and the tracks ain't from the WMA crowd.

I appreciate that the state holds the land along the watershed and protects it from development. I'm in favor of that. I understand that not all publicly-funded land can/should be open to the public. There's more value to a wild place than just its recreational value. There are other tracts of land that are state-held and taxpayer funded, and they're not accessible to hunting. They're held to protect a sensitive area. I support that.

What I don't support is a public property being used as a private club. I don't run the zoo, but if I did the rules would be simple. You don't have to grant the public an easement across your corner or down your road. But if we're playing the "I don't legally have to share" game...then the area is closed to all access and we're ticketing the holy hell out of you if you poach or trespass on it. The public doesn't have to share with you if you're not sharing with them. Quit being a welfare queen and if you want thousands of acres of private hunting land...pay for it. Or, grant an easement, and get the not-insignificant value increase of having a property that has easy access to more usable land that you didn't pay for.

This seems to easily solve the problem. Private landowners have increased value to their land, and the public isn't paying for something and then being told "that's not for you."

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. We have very similar issues across the northeast. The trouble with your proposed resolution is that it requires law enforcement officers to monitor and enforce the rules and for the judicial system to process the violations. In the areas I’m familiar with the law enforcement’s abilities to do so are already next to non existent, so giving them even more to manage doesn’t actually achieve anything. Unless of course we in the public are willing to finance the implementation. If so, Then the question becomes where do these funds come from?

 

[Jammintree]

Apologies for what may be a slight derail, but I think it's tangentially related to the issue being discussed.

Below is an image of a parcel of public near me:

View attachment 82040

Red line outlines WMA. Green line is a dirt road which the state (and hunters) have an easement on. Yellow line is a road that borders a private club and the WMA and that the state does not have an easement on. Orange dots represent a swamp that cannot be crossed without chest waders. For scale, the map is about 3.82 miles long N to S. You're looking at about 1k acres of WMA property, with 80% or so inaccessible to the public for all intents and purposes. Can't access from the creek because it's not navigable (tried that, ended in tears). Can't access from the south without crossing a chest deep swamp and then slogging through a mile or three of titi bushes and switch cane.

The state doesn't have an easement. The private club is within their legal rights to deny the easement. But...the kicker is I've been back there and they treat that land like their club. Stands and feeders all over it, which is illegal. I've been back there 3 times and every time there are tire and boot tracks all over the sandy roads...and the tracks ain't from the WMA crowd.

I appreciate that the state holds the land along the watershed and protects it from development. I'm in favor of that. I understand that not all publicly-funded land can/should be open to the public. There's more value to a wild place than just its recreational value. There are other tracts of land that are state-held and taxpayer funded, and they're not accessible to hunting. They're held to protect a sensitive area. I support that.

What I don't support is a public property being used as a private club. I don't run the zoo, but if I did the rules would be simple. You don't have to grant the public an easement across your corner or down your road. But if we're playing the "I don't legally have to share" game...then the area is closed to all access and we're ticketing the holy hell out of you if you poach or trespass on it. The public doesn't have to share with you if you're not sharing with them. Quit being a welfare queen and if you want thousands of acres of private hunting land...pay for it. Or, grant an easement, and get the not-insignificant value increase of having a property that has easy access to more usable land that you didn't pay for.

This seems to easily solve the problem. Private landowners have increased value to their land, and the public isn't paying for something and then being told "that's not for you."

I’ll add that your point is well placed and far from a digression; if a municipal, state or federal government was to use eminent domain to acquire even the smallest right of way, they would then need to define which users have access and they would then be responsible to monitor those lands. If the law were to allow foot traffic only for a corner cross, that would necessitate that law enforcement would also have to monitor by foot. It’s an interesting dilemma. The more I investigate and think about this, the more I understand why government would have incentive to avoid being decisive.

 

[TheBlindCat]

I tend to agree that there is a good possibility they will lose but, I don't see any significant damages being awarded. There is no actual damages. Also, the hunters reached out to both DNR and the police before they crossed the corner and were told more than one time that what they were doing was completely legal. I can't see punitive damages being awarded when they verified with law enforcement that their actions were legal before the incident.

Also, do you think the fact the landowner obviously and clearly chained the corner with the sole intent to keep people from crossing it will have any impact on the lawful enclosures act being applied? His posts were not part of any other fencing and he has admitted they were they just to keep people from crossing.

Landowner claims they trespassed on his airspace by climbing over his chain with a ladder. Yet somehow that chain isn’t also in the airspace of the public land. Tells you just how full of poop that landowner is, wants sole access to public land and will lie and swindle as much as they can to get it.

 

[GCTerpfan]

Landowner claims they trespassed on his airspace by climbing over his chain with a ladder. Yet somehow that chain isn’t also in the airspace of the public land.

That’s one of the arguments that I hope the hunters attorneys make regarding the unlawful enclosures act. His chain keeping people out was technically on (in the airspace of) public land. Unfortunately, still doesn’t change the fact the hunters trespassed though.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. We have very similar issues across the northeast. The trouble with your proposed resolution is that it requires law enforcement officers to monitor and enforce the rules and for the judicial system to process the violations. In the areas I’m familiar with the law enforcement’s abilities to do so are already next to non existent, so giving them even more to manage doesn’t actually achieve anything. Unless of course we in the public are willing to finance the implementation. If so, Then the question becomes where do these funds come from?

I can't get on your level regarding law enforcement not having sufficient resources/jurisdiction I don't think. Game wardens have pretty wide-reaching jurisdiction here, and they eat the majority of DCNR's budget. May be a red state vs blue state thing?

But, if it's an issue, I'd propose a 3rd solution. If you don't wanna grant an easement and we can't write tickets, lease it. There's your funding to nail violators to the wall a few times to make an example, and I'm sure we can figure out how to spend the rest.

This is an easy problem to solve if it mattered to the right people.

 

[Jammintree]

I can't get on your level regarding law enforcement not having sufficient resources/jurisdiction I don't think. Game wardens have pretty wide-reaching jurisdiction here, and they eat the majority of DCNR's budget. May be a red state vs blue state thing?

But, if it's an issue, I'd propose a 3rd solution. If you don't wanna grant an easement and we can't write tickets, lease it. There's your funding to nail violators to the wall a few times to make an example, and I'm sure we can figure out how to spend the rest.

This is an easy problem to solve if it mattered to the right people.

You may be right about red and blue. Round these parts there are very few game wardens and they are spread very thin already; and they certainly aren’t going to monitor anything if they can’t do it from a motorized vehicle.

 

[BTaylor]

That’s one of the arguments that I hope the hunters attorneys make regarding the unlawful enclosures act. His chain keeping people out was technically on (in the airspace of) public land. Unfortunately, still doesn’t change the fact the hunters trespassed though.

Not criminally though, that case as you know has been decided. The chain puts equal blame, negligence or whatever the appropriate word is on the landowner as far as airspace violation and should preclude any monetary award to the landowner.