Corner Hopping no longer a problem...
General Topic
Pretty neat but lacking in carrying weight.
Can you open a window, so you can flip the rancher/owner the bird as you fly past him?
I know this thread is in jest, but my understanding is private property extends into the air space above the property for a certain distance. So, if 2 public properties butt corner to corner with 2 private properties, there's no physical way to corner hop without trespassing into the air space over the private. This contraption wouldn't solve that problem.
That said, I think corner crossings should be legal. There's literally hundreds of thousands of acres of landlocked public ground that adjacent landowners use for their own private hunting reserves, or profit from hunting on them. These stupid corner crossing laws only add to that problem.
Matt
Have to wait for the 2XL compatible model.
There are almost three million acres of landlocked National Forest in Wyoming that WY residents use as their own private hunting preserve, or profit from others using it. This aeems way worse to me than legitimate landlocked public land with which I don't agree either...) because it is public and readily accessible for every activity except hunting.
Lou,
I'm sorry, but I'm not following your post. What do you mean by "legitimate landlocked public land" and how is that different from public land that is inaccessible to the public because of corner crossing laws? I'm not arguing at all, I just don't understand the comparison you made.
Matt
WY has lots of pieces you simply can't get there, they aren't corner crossing but 100% surrounded by private land
Same in Colorado, Bob. The end result is also the same as corner crossings. Hunters can't access those public lands, while adjacent landowners and outfitters profit on state-owned and managed wild game.
Matt
Just have to wait the alotted time frame to hunt after your flight.
Shaw Magyar (aka: dannyboy),
If I could decipher your illiterate post, I'd respond to it. Perhaps you can try again when you are sober.
Matt
This could actually maybe be feasible. If you got a place to take off and land, also not windy. I did this years ago. Gas may be better. It's a link to a utube video of a paramotor. Video is only 2 minutes long. Watch to end , very short take off and landing. You can get over 1000 ft.
Corner hopping being prosecuted is a bit ridiculous. Your feet cross a few inches of airspace for a split second. Of course I get why it gets prosecuted.
Imagine if everyone called the sheriff every time a neighbor crossed into their airspace or stepped on the lawn while trimming the grass on the property line or when their kid retrieves his frisbee.
Glunt, you think if I walk down a fence line with my arm over the fence line the sheriff is going to come give me a ticket?
Its all about them having free, exclusive land at our expense.
I saw Randy Newberg fly in to landlocked public in a helicopter on one of his episodes. Don’t think he would have done that if it was illegal.
GG, I meant wilderness areas. They are "landlocked" because we can't step across the boundary to hunt there.
I don’t believe anyone has ever technically been found guilty of corner hopping in MT. Very difficult to prosecute. We have a few spots we used to hunt that required corner hopping and I did it for awhile. I’m over it and willing to go to court if that’s what’s needed to clear this up. We should be able to access our land. All of us. I have had run ins with landowner on STATE land that we corner hopped to access. I politely told him my name that I never walked on his property, I’m not hunting his property and he’s welcome to call the sheriff if that’s what he wants to do. Hell I woulda given him a business card if I had one on me! something things only get settled in court and maybe that’s what we need. Someone willing to push it and see what happens. I dunno? I think it’s wrong that it’s illegal.
Matt, you can legally fly over private property without permission. Private planes fly over my farm once or twice a week. On rare occasion those funny motorized parachutes fly over quite low. The kids and I have watched a crop dusters work a nearby field from my yard. When he was done he he flew by quite low but not directly overhead, waved and tossed a field marker as a souvenir for the kids. As long as they are following Flight regulations they are ok. I'm not a pilot so don't know the exact regs but there is a minimum height requirement in some situations such as when flying over dwellings. But for vacant land I'm thinking there is no specified minimum height. I'm sure there is a licensed pilot on here that could clarify what, if any, minimum height requirements exist for vacant land.
But to legally fly over a corner for the purpose of hunting you would have to get permission to land on National Forest lands. You can't legally just do it without the official ok. That is probably the main hurdle as there have been a variety of small aircraft around for many years that can accomplish a short hop and can land just about anywhere to get a person over a corner. As long as you are legally flying and follow all flying regulations you are ok from a trespassing standpoint. It's the legal landing that is the obstacle. In some cases that legal landing can and has been arranged.
Pretty sure that most of you guys who think corner-hopping should be illegal would change your tune if you happened to have purchased one of the corners in question.
I don’t think it’s right, either, but for now it IS illegal and the price of an affected property reflects that reality; if I had paid the premium, I sure wouldn’t want to lose that value…. Even though I VALUE the principle that says that Public should be Public. Because Private should be Private, shouldn’t it? Where are all of the Republican Defenders of Private property rights on this one???
My point is that it’s only an easy answer if you look at it only from one side of the fence.
How do you guys feel about the state compensating Private landowners for the loss of revenue from selling access or the loss in property value when the exclusive access dries up?
Just a prediction: if these areas were to become “unlocked”, they would quickly become just as pressured as anywhere else on accessible, public land, and the animals would quickly become concentrated on the inviolable Private land.
Then what??
I agree that it’s Not Right, but I do not agree that landowners should have No Rights.
I went ahead and looked up the regs. See attache link. In sparsely populated areas there is no minimum altitude requirement as long as you stay 500 feet (can be lateral distance, not necessarily height) to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Excerpt: (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
I'm sure they'll add more options but that model has no useful load and price starts out in triple digits.
Point being - here is where we are today with this technology. Where will we be in 10 years?
13 years ago Tesla made their first car. Today they are everywhere. Popularity, payload, it will all increase.
I'm waiting for an electric jet pack that will go up and down quickly and quietly and drop me on the other side.
In my county in CO the sheriff does prosecute if the landowner calls them in. There are a few notorious corners in great elk spots where locals know not to try it, but nonresidents think they can get away with it and get tickets during hunting seasons. An electric jet pack would fix that..
Seems like a lot of gray area but I've read precedent in CO that above 500' in undeveloped areas is considered navigable airspace.
This may be a dumb question, but has this been tried in a court of law? I just can’t wrap my head around the idea or premise of the law. Just because a persons property adjoins the public’s land, should not give them the right to control said public land, often times being 10’s or 100’s thousands of acres. I would think that an “easement “, should be made mandatory. And to profit from it seems criminal, to me. Although, knowing how politics and money coincide, I’m not surprised. I’d wager a pretty hefty sum that a lot of politicians pockets a being lined with money, to keep the bull…. law on the books.
This is always an interesting discussion. The SC ruled in Causby v. United States that:
“If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run” . . . Thus, a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land,” and invasions of that airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface…However, it seems to be the consensus of the holdings of the courts in this country that the air space, at least near the ground, is almost as inviolable as the soil itself.”
They ruled in favor of the farmer whose chickens were being startled and stop laying eggs because of military aircrafts flying over his property at 83 feet. They also reaffirmed that 500 feet was the minimum height that is considered "public airspace", as Aspen Ghost's link pointed out.
So, what about the airspace between 83' and 500'? Based on the paragraph I quoted above, the landowner owns at least as much air space as he can occupy or use in connection with his land. I have ponderosa pine trees on my property that are well over 83' tall. Does that mean I own the air space to at least the height of my tallest trees? How about a landowner who leases to have a cell tower erected on his property that's 200' tall? Does he own the air space to at least that height?
There certainly seems to be a gray area in case law with respect to the limits of the air space a landowner owns above his property. But, is seems clear there is precedence that makes corner crossing on foot illegal . As someone stated above, it may take someone who is willing to test those laws in court to get them changed.
Matt
I find it hard to believe, that with the millions of acres controlled by the few, someone hasn’t taken this to court. For gods sake, it ‘public land’.
Only reasonable thing to do is use eminent domain to purchase easements.
BC173, it was ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Leo Sheep Company trial. The Causby ruling established that landowners own the airspace above the corner. The Leo ruling establisted that recreational use of public land doesn't constitute a valid reason to force access across checkerboard private land (corner crossing).
In my county, people have been fined for trespassing for crossing at an exact corner.
This may be a technicality, but it isn't technically "public land", despite the tshirt and bumper sticker slogan. It is government-owned land, held in the public trust. There is plenty of public land where the "public" is not permitted to access for various reasons, or where public use is highly restricted (the Wyoming wilderness law banning nonresident hunting in National Forest is one example)
Thanks for the explanation.
Matt, I totally agree with you.
That's a great point, Lou. I'm constantly reminding people who complain about "public land" rights and uses that it isn't really public land in the sense they think it is. State trust lands are another example. Technically they are funded and managed thru tax dollars, but they aren't open to the public, unless they are leased for specific public uses. In Colorado there's nearly 3 million acres of trust lands, and less than a third of it is open for public hunting and fishing.
Matt
I agree fully that the Wyoming wilderness being off limits to NR is far worse than someone not wanting people crawling over a corner fence on private property.
I think property rights should be held in very high regard. And should not be violated period. Not for roads, transmission lines. Not for any reason. If someone wants to put a road or transmission line on my land they should pay MY price not some low arbitrarily arrived at price the Govt tends to use.
WY wilderness on the other hand. That is what should be challenged in court.
Their excuse that we need someone to hold our hand because we may get lost or bit by a bear is ridiculous to those who have been to far more remote places than the relative small WY wilderness.
My guess is if corner crossing was made legal, at that point a landowner would just add a small structure on each of the two corners of private leaving no room between to cross. Obviously this would not be feasible on all corners but to highly sought after ones it would be effective.
With today's GPS technology, it wouldn't be too difficult to define let's say a 4' easement for public access at corner crossings. It would probably take eminent domain to make it legal. It wouldn't harm private landowners at all, except for the ones who are using the public lands as their own private play grounds, or profiting from it.
Matt
It would fit the Eminent Domain criteria. Determining "just compensation" would be tricky, as would deciding which of the hundreds, maybe thousands of corners to pursue in court. And many of the adjoining landowners have a hell of a lot of money to fight it. So a great idea but probably not practical.
It would take Congressional action to do it on a broad scale, and that isnt going to happen because a wholesale application is borderline violation of the Fifth Amendment, and would be tied up in the courts for many years. Then the USSC would probably revert back to the Leo decision that ruled recreational access does not qualify.
Step one would be identifying corners that are good candidates, securing some funding and working with landowners open to leasing/selling a long-term easment. Way harder now than it would have been 30 years ago but easier than it will be 30 years from now.
Obviously prime public spots that are already generating profit, or being used as honey holes for adjoining land owners, aren't likely candidates.
For those who think landlocked public land is strictly a Western problem, nope. Here in NY we have a good bit of landlocked land. I went to an ECON officer about it, to ask if landlocked public land in NY had a "right to access" clause. The officer had no idea, nor did another officer who was asked. They finally did get me an answer, and yep, landlocked in NY is legal. I was encouraged to "ask adjoining landowners." Yeah, because that always works so well.
The one corner I mentioned above gives access to a terrific elk place that runs behind private hay meadows and clear cuts for miles. Some in wilderness and some just NF loaded with elk. He keeps it for family and friends. It's accessible from foot from a wilderness trailhead, but a horrific trip in there with all the impassable deadfall, in wilderness where chainsaws are prohibited. So effectively inaccessible.
The corner is by a county road, but owned by an oil billionaire who bought up a good portion of the entire valley. Not sure how you would calculate the fair compensation for that?.
As a licensed land surveyor I have researched and studied the corner hopping issue and the related court cases. I'm also a private pilot and familiar with airspace regulations.
In regard to ownership of the airspace above your property, yes you own what you can reasonably use based on the permitted/zoned uses in the area. If your property is in the big city where huge skyscrapers are permitted your ownership goes pretty high. If you're in a rural area and the permitted use of the land is basically farming then your ownership probably doesn't go as high. However if cell phone towers and/or wind turbines are permitted uses on your land then your ownership goes higher. However, your ownership "never" goes high enough to interfere with FAA airspace regulations.
As somebody else said, the corner hopping issue seems very simple when you only look at it from one perspective. People have mentioned using eminent domain to take easements. Bear in mind that taking a person's private property without just compensation is unconstitutional.
Laws could be passed that would create easements but you'd have to find an author and sponsors to take it all the way through the legal process. A law like this that benefits the public and nonresidents probably would not be very popular with a lot of politicians constituents and may not help their chances of being reelected. Bottom line, it would most likely be a political hot potato that many landowners would oppose.
One thing I wanted to add, Grey Ghost made a comment about today's GPS technology. I think it's important to understand that GPS does not "know" where the corners are any more than a hammer knows where to pound in a nail. GPS is just another measuring tool and it has greatly simplified measurements but that's it. We used to have to cut lines through the woods and make horizontal and vertical measurements between section corners. Now we set up our survey grade GPS receivers on the section corners and magically measurer to the corners and obtain coordinates by receiving signals from satellites without having to cut a single tree or brush a single line through the woods, through swamps or over lakes, rivers, canyons, etc.
The original section corners were set in the United States Public Land Survey in the early 1800's and into the 1900's starting on the east side of the country and working westward, except for the original 13 States which are not divided into sections. You still need to find or restore the original corners where they were placed in the ground. GPS will help surveyor's make measurements to narrow down the search area to find the corners and to survey the location of the corner once it's found, but GPS does not know where the corners are or where they're supposed to be. Therefore GPS has nothing to do with writing any easement descriptions to facilitate corner hopping.
You’d think if eminent domain can be used to build hundreds of miles of obtrusive walls on private property at our borders, it could be used for this relatively harmless purpose, too. But Lou is probably right, the USSC wouldn’t see it that way.
Matt
Eminent domain is/has been used for many public uses. The public benefit of most of those uses is quite obvious. The trick would be to convince the masses and the politicians and gain widespread support for the "public benefit" of forcing corner hopping easements as opposed to the negative impact of the private property rights that are infringed upon.
It's not much different than if a private land owner owns a parcel of landlocked property and then somehow forced an adjoining land owner to provide an easement through his property for access. It's about infringing on private property rights.
I see both sides but I have a question. Here in NY if a landowner does not want you on his land he puts up Posters. I have heard that is not required in most western states, private is private and permission is required. If that is the law how/where does the ranch owner get the right to go on public land without permission from the public? Just wondering?? Percy
"It's about infringing on private property rights."
Isn't that the case with all eminent domain situations? My point is, I don't think corner hopping easements would be any more of an infringement of private property rights than many other reasons eminent domain is used.
Matt
I first learned about eminent domain from a good friend who is a land man for an oil and gas company. He’s had to pull the eminent domain card several times on landowners who refused to negotiate leases for easements thru their properties. It was an eye-opener for me.
Now, I may be facing the same dilemna. I received a prelimanry letter from a local power company requesting to “discuss” an easement to pull an underground power line thru my property from a nearby wind farm. So far, I’ve ignored the letter, but I suspect the next letter won’t be as amicable. I’ll fight it tooth and nail because the proposed easement would go right behind my house, and would destroy some of the best deer and turkey habitat on my property. Not to mention it would eliminate dozens of magnificent 100 year old ponderosa pine trees. Ultimately, I will probably lose due to eminent domain. Compared to that, I don’t think corner crossing easements are even close to the same level of property rights infringement.
Matt
" If that is the law how/where does the ranch owner get the right to go on public land without permission from the public? Just wondering?? Percy"
I usually don't believe in dumb questions but that question IS dumb
"hundreds of miles of obtrusive walls"
Good fences make good neighbors :^)
Yea, I agree dumb question. About as dumb as this whole thread because nothing is going to change. Public land is government land that should be made accessible to the public but that is not going to happen. However, your land is not your land if government or "big" money wants to use it. That's not going to change either. Percy
Grey Ghost, I don't disagree with you that a corner hopping easement would be a minor infringement comparatively speaking. I personally wish there was such a thing. Probably the biggest reason the law allows utility companies to use Eminent Domain was the financial incentive for getting the law passed, i.e. there was big money behind it. There isn't much money behind the push for corner hopping easements and therefore there isn't much incentive for lawmakers and politicians.
"therefore there isn't much incentive for lawmakers and politicians."
Lots of angry voters demanding easements would be the right incentive. Americans need to stop putting up with bs from politicians. Unfortunately the strong men that built this country have been mostly replaced with pussified, compliant, sheeple, as has become severely evident over the last year and a half.
Matt what you should do is negotiate with the power company. Tell them you will fight them tooth and nail if they go the way they suggested but if you willing to run whatever way ever way you can live with I’ll work with you. They like will conclude run some extra distance is more cost effective than a legal fight. My father in law did this with a pipe line across his place.
Matt, I don't disagree with you but have those angry voters organized themselves? Have they drafted legislation? Have they found sponsors for their bill to get it through the house and the Senate? Are they prepared to testify before the house and the Senate? Have they hired lobbyists? Laws don't just make themselves, somebody needs to take the initiative and rally support for the cause and find people to do the legwork.
With all due respect, The only people upset with this landlocked/checkerboard situation are a few western hunters. In total, hunters make up 4% of the U.S. population. Hunters on the east coast and midwest make up the majority of the hunting population.
If there was an organized movement to change the law and a demonstration or rally were held, it wouldn't draw enough people to even get news coverage.
You’re right, Lou. It’s a noble but hopeless cause. Not even worth talking about really. It’s best to remain apathetic about it.
Matt
Mike I think you're spot on. I've wondered why some of the organizations we all support haven't taken up the cause. RMEF could easily fit this into their mode of operations as it is opening lots more land to hunt elk on and would not cost nearly as much as some of the actual acquisitions it's behind. I'm not a BHA guy at all but they could probably help fund and make a move on it too. I'm sure there are others. It makes zero since that we all own the land and cannot use it due to NOT owning some pieces of land that corner it. Just like with all other private land, there are easements to access it. Why would it not be the same for public?
I see no reason why this has to be just a hunting access issue. If a campaign focused on corner easements benefitting ALL public land users, not just hunters, I think it would garner more support. Of course, It would take people willing to cross political lines and work together for a common goal. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?
Matt
what about if someone crosses where he thinks the corner is, but is way off and is trespassing.
Spike,
It would be no different than any other trespassing cases. It would be the person's responsibility to know where he was at all times. The most popular corners could also be easily marked to reduce any confusion, just like popular trail heads are marked.
Matt
I agree, it would be a very good cause for RMEF to take the lead on. As a Land Surveyor, I would offer my legal/land description writing expertise to assist in writing the easement descriptions.
Matt, I have proposed it to RMEF several times as a possible initiative. They and other hunting organizations are wringing their hands over it but nobody seems to have a realistic solution (not sure about Backcountry Hikers and Activists). I'm not apathetic, only taking a step back and being realistic.
I studied this in college, and later in practice. The huge majority of day hikers prefer to go on established trails to scenic destinations. Same with nonhunting campers. The corners I'm familiar with, and I live in "checkerboard country" don't lead to anywhere anyone not hunting would want to go. Nor would there be any incentive to build trails, trailheads, parking lots, outhouses, etc.. to accommodate the REI crowd.
As much as we like to think all outdoor enthusiasts would all get on board with this, unless it leads to a cool destination, this simply a hunting access issue. No more no less.
As for using tools like OnX to determine property corners, OnX has my property corners and boundaries off by 40 yards. The aerial overlay shows my house as being on public land, but the survey pins prove otherwise.
That's true, any GPS maps are only as accurate as the maps that were used to create them. OnX is accurate to within about a foot on my property corners, but I've heard accounts like Lou's where they are off by a long ways.
I still don't see that as an insurmountable problem. Landowners who disagree with proposed locations for corner crossings could be given the option to have the corners more accurately surveyed. In many cases, I bet they wouldn't like the outcome of the survey. There are fence lines scattered thru-out the west that aren't anywhere close to the actual property lines. And in most cases they favor the private landowners.
I do agree, however, gathering support and funding from the non-hunting public for corner crossings would be the biggest hurdle.
Matt
Regarding the original post... I don't think there are any FAA rules against landing an "Ultralight" without permission. That would fall to the rules of the public land in question. You wouldn't be able to land on property that is restricted from motorized vehicles.
500 feet above charted elevation would clear you from air space infringement. The area would need charted air space restrictions to void the 500' rule. I could fly my Piper Warrior 501 feet above any private property I wanted as long as it is not designated as a no-fly zone on the charts. Wilderness areas are usually 10,000 feet minimums for example.
The biggest hurdle would be finding good landlocked property that allows motor vehicle traffic. If such a place existed, you could legally "hop" in there with a Black Fly. Good luck getting your Elk out though...
"There are fence lines scattered thru-out the west that aren't anywhere close to the actual property lines." Boy, isnt that the truth. The game warden even told me about the signs delineating a big State Trust hunting area that are off by a couple hundred yards, because posting them on the fencelibe was "more convenient". But crossing the fence, ignoring the No Trespassing signs and traveling up the two track is the easiest - and legal- way to get in there.
Lou,
Where I hunted elk last year, there is a huge ranch that borders an equally large chunk of BLM. There is no fence line defining the private/public line. Instead there is a fence that surrounds the entire perimeter of the ranch and the BLM. It gives the appearance that the entire chunk is private. I had 2 rifle hunters who were scouting during the archery season emphatically claim I was trespassing where I was crossing the fence line that was at least 2 miles inside of the BLM. Even after I showed them maps they weren't convinced.
After I killed and finally found my bull on that BLM, a game warden showed up at my camp. He said that someone had "expressed concern" that I was trespassing. When I showed him the exact waypoints of were I was crossing the fence, and where I killed my bull, he complimented me for doing my homework and for documenting exactly where I had been. He didn't have an explanation for why the fence line was placed the way it was, other than "that's the way it's been ever since I've been up here." I'm pretty sure it was the 2 rifle hunters who sent the game warden to check on me.
It's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, IMO.
Matt
Yeah, it goes on everywhere. I know of a number of spots like that. I reported Jimmy Horton for posting the access to a couple thousand acres of BLM in unit 2. The BLM and game warden came out and made him take down the signs. Now that we all have apps and GPS with chips, that sort of garbage shouldn't be tolerated.
Not sure if any of you listen to the meateater podcast, I just started listening to it. I want to say they are doing an auction to raise money for buying easements onto land locked public land. Don't know all the details but somthing to check out and keep am eye on. They were asking people to send in requests if you had land that you would be willing to sell to open up more public access, from there they are going to pick the best and use the money from the auction.
I’ve been kicked off unfenced BLM land by gun toting ranch hands in NV twice. I was bird hunting and well armed but chose to leave without much argument knowing the sheriff and rancher were likely good friends and the local BLM guys had likely given up the fight.
Hunting elk in the the "West" (can't stand that term) is all about knowing what other people don't. The reason the best areas in CO OTC are good is because people don't know about them, or how to access them. Onx has made that possible, and has killed more spots in CO as of late than one can imagine. It's a blessing and a curse.
A lot of those fence lines are off because the crews that put them in couldn't drill, or dig, the holes in the locations they should be, and they just say "Good Enough". This happened a lot where private meets BLM because there are no repercussions. It happens way less when private meets private for obvious reasons.
Unless Colorado limits tags, I'm sorry to say that opening an easement here, or there isn't going to do anything in regards to limiting pressure. It will just be another crowded place on the BLM map.
@ GG, if you believe your little phone, and ONX are capable of getting you to the "Foot" I got news for you.
Great post, Chad. They call them "convenience" fences because they are placed where they are the most convenient, not necessarily the most accurate.
And yeah, OnX might be the best...and worst thing to happen to public land hunting in my lifetime.
You’re right, Caz, a “foot” was an exaggeration. It was more like 6-8 feet. Regardless, I found my pins for the first time using my “ little phone app”.
Right now, OnX is showing me parked where my living room couch is. Which is exactly where I’m at watching football. So it’s not too far off.
Matt
My OnX shows me sitting in the woods more than 150 feet from my true property line on the left, when I actually am sitting in the house watching football. ;-)
Sitting at my office desk on the computer this morning. Once again, OnX is dead on. ;-)
Matt
The Government screwed up by not keeping access to all these places. You cant infringe on Landowner rights because the government screwed up. Thankfully some landowners will still allow access. Still some are greedy bastards that try to run you off BLM. 5,000 acres Daddy left them isn't enough private land for them.
Actually, the government did a classic public-private partnership when this was set up, to get the railroads built. They needed ties so did the every other section arrangement. Much of that private was originally railroad owned. And BLM was whatever private landowners didnt want - basically worthless for grazing for the most part
Back in the 1800s, nobody even thought about access issues. In fact, even back in the 70s and early 80s it was easy to get permission to cross the corners, hunt the ranches, go wherever we wanted. The money aspect of hunting changed all that.
You might be able to hop a corner or two but there won't be any game around for miles. These planes are LOUD! Will spook everything in the area.
More specifically related to the functionality of this drone, when do you think the first outfitters, or hunters themselves will start using these for pack outs?
Imagine just sending the drone your coordinates when you have an animal down and having the drone show up. You attach your payload, and have send the drone back to your vehicle at the trailhead.
Instead of pulling around horse trailer or a UTV on a trailer, you pull the drone on a flatbed trailer. You could have the drone carry your gear and drop it all at your predetermined basecamp, then land back on your trailer at the trailhead. When you’re ready to pack out or have your animal down, send the drone back up to you and fly your gear and animal out.
Sounds like a nightmare to me Mike. If that got started the back country would be even more crowded and less peaceful. I'd have to stop hunting and take up golf.
