If such a thing exists, or ever has existed, in my family, immediate or distant, I am unaware of it.

The worst FSA shitbirds I know are 'ranchers'.  They talk a good game about personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, and limited government... while leeching off of said government and doing everything possible to keep the public off of adjacent public lands

They won't get any sympathy or support from me when they get fucked over.  Completely self-inflicted, and well deserved

The checkerboard system is a cluster no question.
People that feel entitled to used other people’s private property are shitbags.
People that feel entitled to exclusive use of non leased public land and the right to profit from it are shitbags on steroids.

He already assured us he doesn’t walk on sidewalks and is anti neighborhoods.  

Na. The posts should go.  ...but it's not surprising to see the hypocrisy with that chain on full display.

I never said the ranchers were saints. Just that their rights should be protected by law.

Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong here.  I’m still trying to follow sequence of events over time, before I form an opinion one way or other

1. All land out there owned by fed gov
2. At some point , folks could claim it, assuming homestead
3. Living out west is rough way to make living, so not enough folks  homestead
4. Checkerboard clusterfuck instated , and stays for long time
5. . Gov figures living out west is rough go at it, y’all can lease this stuff for not much $ per month
6. Landowners fence public out and claim airspace trespass against corner jumpers
7. Corner jumpers eventually figure out best way to handle this is new legislation allowing them the right to access
8. Landowners now upset over “airspace/private property “ violations
      I personally understand this, on a fundamental level, in theory
9. Eminent domain gets brought up, we all argue on internet…


Unless I misread article, there’s 8.3 million acres land locked by this situation. 11kish “corner crossings”

That means there is 8.3 million acres paid for by public, that only some private property owners get use of .

To put that number in perspective…. I’ve worked with the largest landowner in the country. He’s second ONLY to the US govt .  He doesn’t own 8.3 million acres. He owns land in the area in question. I have no idea if this situation takes place on/with any of his properties. I never saw it myself, but that doesn’t mean anything

It would be interesting to know
 1. The owners involved, and their private holdings, and leased holdings that essentially give them exclusive access
 2. The fair market value of the lease ground if sold today
 3. If same owner conduct any business other than grazing on lease land

My personal belief is #3 is the real problem. I’m basing this on my experience working out there. I work very closely with folks that literally bleed for the dirt they have . I make my living the same way . Folks that never have, will never get it . I don’t fault them or blame them .  But this is different. They ain’t bleeding for the rest. They don’t have to pay for it, not realistically anyway . So it ain’t the same , at least not my personal opinion

Eminent domain .  Generally speaking , fuck that . Taking private land to build public bullshit .  This situation is essentially the same . Taking private ground.  But, it only a matter of feet, to access ground that has been public forever, but recently put off limits , by private owners that direct benefit from blocking acces

@stevelish   Hoping you’ll come back and fill in some gaps for us

As mentioned before, you could literally fly in and they’ll still harass you, threaten you, have you arrested, and cause civil havoc for you.

You done did it now, what till steve gets back here he's going to fucking stroke out, which I think is a good thing

Unapologetically, yes.

Yeah. That’s why they bitch about “airspace”. You go so far as to not even contact their land and they bitch about airspace. It’s extremely obvious they don’t care about those 6 square inches the corner crossers violate. They are concerned about the diminishing returns they make by having exclusive access to public land.

I hate people with no respect for private property.
I hate people that feel entitled to the exclusive use of and profit from public land more.

The private owners are just begging to get a .gov smack down from doing this.
And .gov will come up with something like,
‘To rectify the error of land locking public lands, the entirety of checkerboard properties will ensure the corners of all adjacent checkerboard private properties will be unable to do this.  
An easement to ensure public access will be as follows.
A right triangle at each corner will have two sides of 87” long, with a hypotenuse of 123 inches, with an altitude from the right angle to the hypotenuse of 61.5 inches.  
This easement of a 297 inch perimeter, 0.0006 acres area easement in each corner of the private checkerboard portion may not be gated, fenced, blocked, or landscaped in any way to block passage.”

They will fight that and end up with having to pay a bunch of money to ensure any natural pre-existing obstacles modified to allow passage of even handicapped people at their own cost.

It's an easy fix No one may access public land through private property. Now it's off limits to the owners of the surrounding land.

Yes I own land and yes I see the issue from both sides.

Been thinking about solutions to this all day, looking at it from both sides to best of my ability, using facts/legality/and fairness, as I understand them currently.  Please tell me if this makes me a leftist commie

1. Appraise all landlocked blm land at current fair market value
2. Allow adjacent landowners to bid on it first . Market value is starting number. If more than one adjacent landowner would like to buy it, they can bid amongst themselves. Highest bidder gets it
3. If the determined “fair market value” is lowest offer, or only one adjacent landowner bids on it , it get open to general public for auction
4. Same rules apply. Mkt value is starting number, highest bidder gets it.  If it happens to be non adjacent landowner, all legal rules of ingress/egress apply for new owner
5. All sales are cash payable immediately at end of auction. You want financing, line it up with your bank beforehand. No govt programs /subsidies
6. If nobody buys it during auction, it remains blm/public access land .  It will continue to be leased under current grazing rates set by blm.  This will be your only right  under lease agreement.  Any other activities will involve criminal penalties, determined by state .  Basically same as poaching . In return , public will be able to trespass the airspace to access the public land by corner crossing .

Surely everybody can see how this is “fair” based on past precedents/laws/tradition, but also fair in the eyes of they public.

I think I covered everything. Feel free to add

Again, I don’t have a dog in the fight . Absolutely respect property rights . Especially those that work in the dirt . But fuck all the I want it but don’t really want to pay for it bullshit

I'm not saying I agree with that 100%, but my level of agreement relative to the number of words it took you to articulate it, is off the charts. Well done.

Some guys in Wyoming did just that but they had a homemade ladder.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2022-09-23/corner-crossing-lawsuit-is-the-latest-fight-over-mountain-west-land-access

They were initially charged criminally but that got dismissed.  Now the ranch owner is suing them in civil court.  He is claiming 7 million in damages.

thats not true.

One things for sure, touched on in the OP's article: landowners and public users better come up with a solution or the government will, and in this case, it will be to landowner detriment.

The ranchers who are "rent-seeking" by claiming some kind of sole right of passage for their exclusive guided hunt monopoly will never agree to any compromise.  Precisely because it would end their little fiefdoms.   They can't agree to anything that would pierce their monopoly over the use of that land.   They treat it as their right.   I believe that is the underlying basis for the multi-million dollar lawsuit ongoing against those hunters who built the ladder to corner cross.  

Both sides have to be willing to compromise.   One side most definitely isn't because they have no reason to.   They lose nothing by attempting to maintain their monopoly as long as possible.

Whole "my Airspace".

There was a corner crossing case here awhile back and they used a ladder and still got charged.

I think if I remember right the corner was barb wire fenced with center post in corner and how the private fence was not deemed to be trespassing itself on public land like the chain between corner posts in a previous response...But like pointed out rich connected land owners and cattle barons paid good money on politicians to get the laws the way they wanted.

I suspect a government solution will be one that neither side will like (maybe that's for the best).

If the feet of the ladder touch private property you are causing millions in damage.

If they touch only on public land you are still causing millions in damage because you are violating the airspace and not dropping down directly over public land from 2000’ AGL.

Either way, it’s an offense that could be punishable by death.

Appraising the land and giving adjacent landowners preference in the bidding process is too open for corruption and preferential treatment.
Any land sold should be open for public auction from the start, with appropriate easements granted, as well as some mechanism for public inspection/examination of the land prior to auction.
If an adjacent landowner wants it bad enough, he'll outbid the general public, establishing the true market value of the land.

More realistically, just establish easements on all the corners and prohibit landowners from fencing or otherwise blocking it off.

You might be right .  Guess I was just thinking “this stuff sells for 1500/acre .  Here the comps, ect. You have 24 hrs” . This would solve the problems of long standing tradition. And nobody can have a complaint , other than, this only cost me $100/month to lease ..

I’ve read a lot on it in last 24 hrs .  Whole thing sounds f…ked up .

That's a chicken shit answer. You could have just said yes because that is what you believe but your just too much of a coward to say it.

Lol.

Man this place hates property.

Brilliant rebuttal.

That wasn’t a rebuttal. Just a dismissal. You gave no argument, you just emoted.

Everybody loves private property rights till it’s time to do private property rights stuff

You inability to answer the the simple question with a yes speaks volumes about your character.

It’s not as simple as that and you should know that.

The majority of us simply want to access public land, without stepping on anyone’s private land.

What are your thoughts on sidewalk and ladders?

But it *is* that simple.

Access the public land any legal/ethical way you want, just don't cross the neighbor's property to do so. The neighbor owes you nothing (even if it would be nice and decent for him to help you).

How do you access water-locked islands? You find a way to legally cross the water. You buy or rent a boat. Or learn to swim. In like manner, here, you need to buy or rent a helicopter, or learn to fly. Adjacent property owners are not required to help you. If you think otherwise, you have ran afoul of the legal concept that no thing can be a 'right' if it requires action or imposition on another's part.

This concept wouldn't be hard if you didn't want it to be. The problem with seeing my point of view here, for most of you, is exactly and only this: If you saw it correctly, you'd have to renounce your claims to the property of another (the neighbor whose corner you want to cross). So you can't see it my way for the exact, precise, selfsame reason that the left can't see free-market healthcare: they'd have to relinquish their claims on the labor/property of others.

Eminent domain the easements for $50 per corner.
Kelo v New London and other cases support it.

Kharn

I have a friend who used to work for a ranch that owns property in the crazy mountains in Montana, where corner crossing/easements have been a huge battle.

He’s of course on the side of his rancher buddies… His argument is that the hunters don’t care about the rules of the easement and trespass, therefore there shouldn’t be any easements.

He also argues that just because the government owns the land doesn’t mean people have a right to use it, just like people don’t have a right to access military bases.

I tried explaining the concept of “multi use” and that public land exists for the expressed purpose of public use, unlike national defense assets.

Furthermore if bad hunters are breaking the rules, make a fucking example out of them, don’t punish the good hunters who are following the rules.

Finally it wasn’t like this land that is checkerboarded became so after the ranchers purchased it. Easements and a clarification of trespass law was always a distinct possibility. They got away with exclusive use of the land for decades, essentially owning twice the land for half the price. They shouldn’t be shocked those chickens are coming home to roost, nor should they be shocked they are going to deal with the occasional trespasser.

For the record I’m not defending people who trespass, but if you purchase land adjacent to public land or that has public easements, that’s sort of to be an expected issue from time to time.

It’s like buying land in a flood plain then getting pissed about it flooding.

This thread has gone exactly how I figured it would once arfcommers got on their high horses.

Whether they're doing it consciously or not, they're engaging in a motte and bailey fallacy.  Where they're faced with a bailey (an indefensible position like landowners encircling public land and harassing/prosecuting anyone who is found there no matter how they got there), and when faced with push back they retreat to their motte (an easily defended position like respecting property rights).

Its an extraordinarily dishonest way to argue, but virtue signalers love it because they can tell themselves that they're sticking up for something noble when they're actually defending something terrible.

If you've been paying attention to the inrange drama threads, you see the same thing happening there.  Arfcommers pressed Karl on his support of kids drag shows, wanting to kill people who disagreed with him, and courting the violent left, he just retreated back to the mantra "the 2nd amendment is for everyone".  No one ever said it wasn't, but it gave him an out to ignore the issues actually being discussed.

The same thing is happening in this thread.  Arfcommers bring up corporations using public land for business purposes while restricting access to the actual land owners, to the extent that they prosecute and sue people who access it despite never crossing private property.  And others inevitably retreat into private property discussions.  No one said they were against private property, but it gives them an out to ignore the actual issues being discussed.

Extraordinarily well stated. I’ve never heard of a motte and Bailey fallacy, but it’s obviously apparent that’s what most people do when they lose and argument.

OK. Then the thread is over. If free-landers stop trespassing the drama stops.

Its an informal fallacy so its not one that gets discussed a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#:~:text=The%20motte%2Dand%2Dbailey%20fallacy

Thanks for posting that. I appreciate it when people attempt to virtue signal and fail in such a way as to make it so easy to point out:

You say I'm defending these ranchers who harass people found there 'no matter how they got there'.

Factually incorrect. I have posted so often to the contrary that the only explanation a reasonable person could believe here is that you are willingly choosing to lie.

I do not support the ranchers harassing people for legally accessing public lands, period, end of subject, full stop. I support them exercising the right to defend their property, legally, against trespassing. I have stated repeatedly that apart from the issue of trespassing over private property, I don't care what people do on public lands. I don't care how they get there - as long as it doesn't involvetrespassing.

Pointing this out, of course, removes the lynchpin from your entire post and reveals it to be nothing more than an attempt to articulate your way into condemning me for being right and consistent, by misstating my position. I expect no better from you.

This is getting old. Page 11 and all you guys can do is regurgitate the same old crap.

I’d argue that not stepping foot on private ground isn’t trespassing.

As for the crazies, there are long established easements that were there since the ranchers bought the land.

The ranchers just don’t like the easements now that outfitting is more profitable than ranching, and it’s a lot more profitable when those dirty resident and nonresident DIY public land hunters can’t access the public land without paying the rancher.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I think you are so entrenched in your own ideology that even when something is completely against both logic and your own self interest, you feel the need to defend it.

Logically, having public land available is good for society, from the perspective of both conservation, recreational opportunity and hunter access, and similarly access to that public land is important.

Defending that isn’t an attack on private property or private property rights. Nobody here is arguing that all land should be public, or that you should be able to go anywhere you want on private land.

Either position taken to the extreme is illogical and harmful to society as a whole.

If there is an established easement allowing the general public to access a parcel of land, the ranchers shouldn't have a leg to stand on here, and that is a separate issue - but speaking in general terms, such easements don't seem to be very common.

As for your argument that you can *cross* private ground without it being trespassing if you manage not to *touch down* in the process.....the courts in western states have never seen it that way. I have pointed this out repeatedly. The land was bought in good faith by the current owners (unless you're looking at legacy ranches owned by the same family for over a century...) with the understanding that they were buying title to the land and the space immediately above it, even at the corners.

I will defend them, even if GD thinks me a bastard for it. Property rights for you, property rights for me, property rights for bastards, even when the masses hate it.

Anything less and we no longer have a civil society. That's a hill I'll die on.

You posted before my edit, but I’ll say this again for emphasis.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I think you are so entrenched in your own ideology that even when faced with something is completely against both logic and your own self interest, you feel the need to defend it.

Logically, having some public land available is good for society, from the perspective of both conservation, recreational opportunity and hunter access, and even (gasp!) individual freedom, and similarly access to that public land is important.

Defending that isn’t an attack on private property or private property rights. Nobody here is arguing that all land should be public, or that you should be able to go anywhere you want on private land.

Either position taken to the extreme is illogical and harmful to society as a whole.

Well, you've managed to cram every predictable response into one post so, you've got that going for you.

1 - Harassment of people legally in these areas are a core component to the corner crossing issue.  I know you're not arguing for it, instead choosing to ignore it for a different, more broad issue.  That's how motte and bailey fallacies work.

2 - Your double down doesn't surprise me.  It takes a big man to admit that he's wrong and most just want to be the hero, even when they're not.

3 - It also doesn't surprise me that you're wanting to disengage now that your silly logic has been revealed to all.  You really have 3 paths at this point.  You can:

A - Admit that you've been purposely playing games (I don't think you have been).  

B - Realize that you've been engaging in faulty thinking and grow from it.

C - Convince yourself that everyone else are just commies who hate private property and run away learning nothing.

Two of those things require intellectual integrity, and I genuinely hope you don't choose the third.

Western civilization hinges on the broader issue - and you're on the wrong side of it.

You could improve your position, if you wanted to. Or not. Your call.

Ah, so now you're the hero of all of Western Civilization which hinges on your hot take on corner crossing and anyone who disagrees is on the wrong side of history Western Civ.  I'll take that to mean that you've elected the third option.

You really should go read through the inrange threads and think about how Karl argues and how it mirrors the way you argue.

I think it’s ok to admit that as a society, we got something right in the US when it comes to public land and property rights.

Most of our iconic and stunning landscapes are protected in perpetuity and available for use by all citizens, while there is still vast areas available for private citizens to own for their exclusive use and benefit.

Sure, it could use some minor refinement/clarification in areas like corner crossing.

But overall it’s a pretty fucking awesome system. We should be proud of it and fight to keep it that way. It sure beats anywhere else on the planet that’s for sure.

It’s exclusive to western civilization, and was devised during its peak, and I think that says something.

No. I don't believe that. Public land is an oxymoron. Property is private or it really isn't property at all.

(Warning: the following is a hypothetical)

But even if I *did* believe it, and conceded your point (and I do not) I would argue that having 'public' property enmeshed in such a mess was never a good idea, and should have been fixed, and should still be fixed, using whatever process possible that does not infringe upon the real rights of the adjacent owners.

Further up the page someone posted a brilliant solution: "No access by the public except from access points open to all the public".

I'd be fine with that. It does no violence to the rights of the adjoining owners, yet does cut off the implied free stuff they get, which is apparently what everyone here hates. It solves the stated problem without infringing upon the real rights of the neighbors. It doesn't solve the problem of public access to landlocked lands, which I suspect is the real problem (there's a deer! I want to shoot it! Muh 'murican free huntin' heritage!) but that would, require greater changes, such as....

......just sell the landlocked parcels and put the money towards other public lands (again, I object, but less so than I object to the landlocked parcels) with secure access. Or write them off as nothing more than grazing lands (terrible solution, but whatever). Or set up a self-serve 'copter rental kiosk with a giant drone to drop off hunters. Swipe your credit card and the drone flies you straight up, over ten feet, and straight back down. Double-swipe on the way back and it'll also carry your dead deer. Absurd, but legal and peaceful, and again, I will die on the hill of 'legal and peaceful'.

In Texas you can’t land lock someone.   The court will make an easement the shortest path possible.   I know because a guy tried to do this to my grandfather.  He then spent thousands to try and enforce it.  I guess he thought my grandfather would sell him the land cheap or something. Court did the middle thing.  Made the guy sell a roads width to my grandfather for 25k.  Then made the guy pay to fence it off. Tones of money spent and he still used the same easement road he had been using since before I was born.