Corner Crossing - Where to go from here?

[Four White Socks]

Four White Socks---Nobody is infringing on the private property rights of an owner when they corner jump! Actually even if a person is off a few feet when using a GPS their would really be no harm done. The ONLY reason they don't want it allowed is because it will infringe on THEIR total use of the public land since they are the only ones using it now. Ask them what other reason there is and they can't come up with even one reason!

Granted, the infringement would be small, but let's be honest. That's not the problem that the opposition cited. They are worried about the precedent it sets. This law would basically say it is o.k. to trespass "just a little bit."

Also, it's not a landowners fault that the public land is adjacent to his parcel. He may get some windfall benefits from it but you can hardly blame him for that. Who among us is not going to access some public ground if you own access?

 

[mtmuley]

Why is "owning access" to public ground OK? mtmuley

 

[RobG]

You crack me up. I'm not sure a landowner would even be allowed to have a fence on a corner because it might be misconstrued that the intent of the fence is to limit access.

Sweetnectar, the vast majority of these corners are already fenced and that is not going to change. The corners really don't even need to be pinned because the fence junction marks what the landowner thinks is the corner.

I'm not sure how you would hop the fence without touching the landowner's fence unless you built a styles-type ladder, However, at the same time the landowner's fence would be blocking access so I would say that a reasonable compromise is for the landowner to accept the fact that if he wants to fence the corner then people will have to right to touch his fence to cross, otherwise he would be illegally blocking access to public land.

Someone remind me... if a land isn't posted, can you trespass on it to gain access to public land? (I know you can't hunt on it, but can you walk across it.) If so, the burden of marking the corner would be on the landowner if he is concerned about the exact location of the corner.

 

[Oak]

Funny how here in Colorado it will be the Democrats that will make it harder for average Joe sportsman to draw a tag when they pass the next Landowner giveaway here in a little bit (more of the tag quota). Of course the Repubs havent been much better when they were in control. We've gone too far with the commercialization of hunting for there to be any chance of turning the sport around. Makes the problems in MT & WY seem minor compared to here

Hope you guys can win this one, cause its pure BS that they dont want to allow going from public to public.

I'll bet there will be more D "no" votes than R.

 

[shoots-straight]

Also, it's not a landowners fault that the public land is adjacent to his parcel. He may get some windfall benefits from it but you can hardly blame him for that. Who among us is not going to access some public ground if you own access?

The same goes in reverse for public lands. It's not the public's fault that those lands are sided by private. There's an access point, and that should be legal. No?

If fenced, then ladders should be installed. No different that fishing access spots.

The resistance to this bill is really a true takings upon the private over the public's lands.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

"Also, it's not a landowners fault that the public land is adjacent to his parcel. He may get some windfall benefits from it but you can hardly blame him for that. Who among us is not going to access some public ground if you own access? "

Four White Socks---Please tell us how many acres you own and how much public land you are blocking from us with your attitude on this! You surely sound like a property owner with adjacent public land to be speaking like you do in each post.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Keep in mind that many of the National Forest and BLM sections in checkerboard have been abutted by private lands since the Railroad Grants of the mid-eighteen hundreds. They have been accessed for many purposes by the adjacent private landowners with no fences to mark the boundaries because of no requirement or perceived need to delineate the boundaries. 'Don't know the number, but there are many if not most with no fences, let alone corner fence posts.

Just look at any National Forest recreation map and you will see the great number of checkerboarded public sections. I don't think many of those sections have fencing around them or on any boundary.
They are public and the public should be allowed access. I am pretty sure that when the private lands were ceded to the railroads and then subsequently to other private parties the intent was not to then shut down the public lands to public interests. If the GPS technology is not good enough, then for those who have been exploiting the use of these public lands for over a century, it is encumbent on them to mark corners if there is a real concern about John Q. Public putting a six-inch wide track on their fragile soil.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Amen, Straight Arrow, Amen!!!

 

[1_pointer]

Would there be any way to have the USFS, State of Montana and BLM amend their lease agreements or at least make any new lease agreements to read that public access must be allowed or their lease would be revoked and they would not be able to farm or ranch on those leases until public access was allowed?

For grazing leases/permits on BLM lands there is no way to force public access as part of the grazing lease/permit. IIRC precedent on this has been set by the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Somewhat related, I know of private parcels that block access to public land and the landowner has a grazing lease. BUT, not on the public land adjacent to his property. In your scenario should he be required to allow access?

 

[1_pointer]

As an aside, I own some land in Indiana. Uncle Sam is my northern 'neighbor' and it is not a corner to corner situation. I do not plan on allowing public to cross my land to get to the public land. There is legal acces to this parcel from two other directions. I don't feel bad. Having those hard to acces lands next door was a large reason we purchased the parcel we did.

 

[Straight Arrow]

1_pointer, you made a wise purchase and as part of the public you may access the public land from your land. No one is even suggesting that you should allow the public to cross your place to access the public land. It is clearly your right to not allow or to allow. But be clear, this is an issue specifically regarding public access to public land via public land ... NOT via private land.

 

[1_pointer]

I understand the situation very clearly. I used to work on LOTS of checkerboarded public lands (Trans Contenental Railway). Some posts above asked about a persons land owning status so I stated mine.

 

[Four White Socks]

"Also, it's not a landowners fault that the public land is adjacent to his parcel. He may get some windfall benefits from it but you can hardly blame him for that. Who among us is not going to access some public ground if you own access? "

Four White Socks---Please tell us how many acres you own and how much public land you are blocking from us with your attitude on this! You surely sound like a property owner with adjacent public land to be speaking like you do in each post.

Well you got me, so I guess I will come clean. I am the proud owner of 10 Sprawling acres, surrounded by county road and private wheat field. Topgun, you are welcome to hunt it all you would like. Why the suspicion? Because I acknowledge that these legislators have a legitimate concern about the precedent that would be set? I would enjoy corner crossing as much as anyone else. I hunt almost exclusively public land, but sometimes it is necessary to look further than the end of my own nose.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I only wish that you would have been around during the eighteen hundreds when these public lands were checkerboarded in a landlocked pattern precluding any public access to look further than the end of your own nose in concern about the precedent set at that time that prevents public use of public lands.

 

[mtmiller]

I'm not sure how you would hop the fence without touching the landowner's fence unless you built a styles-type ladder, However, at the same time the landowner's fence would be blocking access so I would say that a reasonable compromise is for the landowner to accept the fact that if he wants to fence the corner then people will have to right to touch his fence to cross, otherwise he would be illegally blocking access to public land.

In many cases the "landowner fence" is owned by many "landowners" through their taxes. Not all these fences are privately owned.

 

[Mudranger1]

The same goes in reverse for public lands. It's not the public's fault that those lands are sided by private. There's an access point, and that should be legal. No?

If fenced, then ladders should be installed. No different that fishing access spots.

The resistance to this bill is really a true takings upon the private over the public's lands.

I only wish that you would have been around during the eighteen hundreds when these public lands were checkerboarded in a landlocked pattern precluding any public access to look further than the end of your own nose in concern about the precedent set at that time that prevents public use of public lands.

Well unfortunately none of us were. And where I did see it as something I was open too I don't understand the thought process of everyone just being entitle to cross someone else's property. Do you let people just walk in yard to get to that public road or whatever public place is around? I just don't get it. And as far as I know modern gps models are not accurate enough to be used as defense for being on private/public property I know my gpsmaps to be a good 30 yards off reality I do think there should be some kind of easement granted to access public lands but I feel a lot this overstepping property rights without that. And I own .11 acres in a subdivision backed up to another house in case that comes up

 

[Mudranger1]

SS are you referring to something like a walk-over bridge? that to me would probably be the best solution to all this

 

[Oak]

SS are you referring to something like a walk-over bridge? that to me would probably be the best solution to all this

 

[Straight Arrow]

Mudranger1, you have brought up a critical point. Is crossing the corner going to cause the crosser to physically occupy 30 yds or 2 feet or 6 inches or what amount of space? Resolution of this issue requires that to be determined and agreed as reasonable. Next you will say that 2 inches or two hundred inches is still trespassing ... but that is not a reasonable argument.

Did you realize that in many states if you own a piece of land which is landlocked by other pieces of private property, there are provisions by which you can gain an easement for access. Some require that easement at no cost to you as the accessor, depending on the extent of access (ie; vehicle, foot, etc.) Property rights are not exclusive. Property rights radicals have interpreted and applied way more to the constitutional right than exists by law and in reality.

And for full disclosure, I own tracts of land in three different locations in two counties of Montana. I don't own hundreds of acres, but still I highly value my property rights as strongly as those who own many sections landlocking public land. Maybe the difference is that I look at access with another perspective, as a lifelong hunter and fisherman and a guy with the traditional Montana attitude toward others. In fact, my acreage with extensive frontage on the Gallatin River, a blue ribbon trout stream, is fenced back from the river with a trail so fishermen can walk the bank where more difficult to wade. It hasn't cost me a dime, most accessors are great people, and the trout certainly don't belong to me.

The public land does not belong exclusively to those blocking public access through an extremely small point at the corner of the next sction of public land. They will not lose a dime of what is legitimately their property by allowing corner crossing. So what's the problem?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Mudranger1---Where did you come up with this idea of us walking on private property? When you get to a corner you are merely stepping from one piece of property onto the other without touching the other two adjacent pieces. Incidentally, I don't know what GPS you are using to be off 30 yards because most of them now are accurate within 10-12 feet, especially if you have WAAS enabled. The Garmin Legend HCx I just bought last summer for $153 was easily inside those distances every time I found a corner or section pin during my trip to Wyoming last Fall.