[NA] Public land access

Interesting story. Synopsis: A checkerboard-like arrangement of public and private land that meet at their corners. Hunters use a ladder to cross the corner, from one public space to another, without touching the soil on private land, but passing through the air some feet above it. So the rich private landowner sues for millions for trespassing the private land. Conflicting laws and claims. Lotsa lawyers.

Don’t know who’s right. But I’d guess the FAA would say it doesn’t regulate the airspace under ladders. If the hunters had used a helicopter or a powered parachute, that would have changed things a lot.
 
...or a powered parachute,...


It'd be pretty tough to carry guns, ammo, camping gear, and food for a couple of weeks on a powered chute, I'm afraid. Not to mention the challenge of getting hundreds of pounds of elk meat out.
 
I wish I knew more about civil law. I hope the judge has sufficient powers to look at this case, proclaim the plaintiff is being a complete doos, and reverse-fine him for wasting the court's time.
 
Someone is missing out on a business opportunity to provide access to "landlocked" public lands by helicopter. I'd be quite surprised to find this isn't already taking place.
It has been done. The caveat is most states usually require 24 hours before you start the hunt
 
It has been done. The caveat is most states usually require 24 hours before you start the hunt


That would be a problem for a day hunter, but not for a group that's going to camp and hunt for a week or two.
 
That would be a problem for a day hunter, but not for a group that's going to camp and hunt for a week or two.
Nope. Not at all. Just can't hunt the same day. When I hunt BLM land I'm usually hunting national forest as well. This year was my longest camp yet. 17 days in a tent sleeping on a cot. Wasn't long enough.

The corner crossing problem has been ongoing for decades. I think there was even case that went to a state supreme court over it. Some states are checkerboarded worse than others. New Mexico isn't too bad.
 
Not once did the article make the obvious declaration that the government should be rule-bound to maintain all public space as contiguous. If they did that one simple thing then the corner-crossing issue would vanish.
That's Yahoo News trying to keep the government who is obviously at fault, out of the reader's minds.

Ultimately the best solution is not to have any public land at all. People not accustomed to thinking in terms of liberty will tend to poo-poo such a notion out of hand. But this is really just a fear of something they find unfamiliar and have given little or no thought to the topic.

Although ridding ourselves of the problem of public land still doesn't resolve the question of whether waving your hand over a fence is trespassing.




Largely NA.
Didn't we say the FAA owns all the air above the ground to fl600?
It's become an issue in the Landlocked public land arguments:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/public-land-public-cant-reach-150629280.html
 
Last edited:
There is a legal distinction that the article failed to mention and glossed over and your question alludes to...there is a legal difference between air rights and airspace ownership. No, you typically can't install a structure over someone else's property which is essentially what they did but you could indeed fly over and land if they took that route for access...so the use of the term "airspace" in the article is a bit misleading in its quest to tell a story.
 
Ultimately the best solution is not to have any public land at all. Although that still doesn't resolve the question of whether waving your hand over a fence is trespassing.

Horrible solution.
Agreed. I’d hate to imagine a country with no public lands. No national or state parks, forests, grasslands… no thanks.

I do think the best solution is to require private landowners to make reasonable accommodation to allow people to reach public land. If there’s no requirement for that, then a lot of public land is effectively under private control.

I wonder what the requirements are to allow NPS or other game and parks personnel access to that land?
 
Not once did the article make the obvious declaration that the government should be rule-bound to maintain all public space as contiguous. If they did that one simple thing then the corner-crossing issue would vanish.
That's Yahoo News trying to keep the government who is obviously at fault, out of the reader's minds.

Ultimately the best solution is not to have any public land at all. Although that still doesn't resolve the question of whether waving your hand over a fence is trespassing.

There is a LOT of history that has contributed to the situation we're in now on this issue. It's really interesting, if you're into that kind of mind numbing pacts and agreements throughout history (which I recently found out that I am).

Another wrench in the gears on this issue is that the case involves hunters travelling from federal public land to federal public land, but the previous cases have been decided at the state level, so for a long term solution, this needs to hit a federal court so a more powerful precedent can be set.
 
Went to Norway this fall.
Was interested to learn that for the most part, anyone can travel on PRIVATE land as long as they follow some very reasonable rules.
I suspect the landowners have no liability risk.

I works.
Somehow, people can act like adults and no one gets in a tither, from time to time.
 
In New Mexico landowners with enough property in the right area can apply for elk landowner tags. They can request the tag be unit wide or ranch only. They can they sell these tags to the highest bidder. Depending on unit it's anywhere from 2500-10k a tag if it's unit wide. If the ranch is designated unit wide the landowners must allow other hunters onto the property as it's essentially treated as public land during the season.
 
Went to Norway this fall.
Was interested to learn that for the most part, anyone can travel on PRIVATE land as long as they follow some very reasonable rules.
I suspect the landowners have no liability risk.

I works.
Somehow, people can act like adults and no one gets in a tither, from time to time.

Being a fairly active public land user (hunter), I would say the days of assuming self-governed responsible use has gone the way of the dodo in the U.S. Probably 98% of the people that use public lands consistently are solid down to earth people that close gates, don't rut up roads when muddy, don't blaze out new trails b/c they're too lazy to walk, etc. etc. But man.. that remaining 2% can do some real damage and the sense of entitlement that they display is frightening. My purely speculative guess is that the vast majority of land management budgets goes to repairs of misuse rather than expanding access or enhancing use options.
 
The thing that drives me nuts is when you find a campsite in the national forest, you're going to find broken glass bottles. Why?! Pack it in pack it out. Now, I will say I think the national forest could make that a little easier and provide a dumpster. I'd even pay.
 
I do think the best solution is to require private landowners to make reasonable accommodation to allow people to reach public land. If there’s no requirement for that, then a lot of public land is effectively under private control.

This approach is what California uses to maintain public beach access. It generally works, except for a few rich folks who aren't fined enough to make a difference to them. (California beaches are public lands up to the high-tide line.)
 
Back
Top