I am very torn on this subject. As an outdoorsman Federal land should be accessible if possible. But as a large land owner I strongly feel private property rights must be top priority. Corner crossing might not actually affect the private land but only if the corner is surveyed and legally marked. Just using a GPS is not good enough. I don't care if you only put 1 foot on private property and the other foot never touches it, that is still violating private property rights. As far as true land locked federal land goes. If a land owner wants to offer access that is great but if they don't others need to get over it or support land trades. People who bought this available land 200 years ago or so didn't do it with the idea of keeping people off federal land. If we lose private property rights in this country we will be so close to ending what this country is all about and becoming socialist it isn't even funny.
We are not losing private property rights if we step from property that we can be on legally on to public property. If it is surveyed and marked and I step from property I can be on to public land, why is that not legal? Violating the private property air space is BS unless you shut down all aviation.
Serious question, and not meant to be argumentative. Describe how you are impacted if a hunter steps from public to public?
I had a dog in this fight . I owned a large piece of land at one time and there was landlocked public. It did not hold a lot of game but there was a reasonable chance of seeing and killing a deer in the fall. The chukar hunting was pretty good. I put up signs to ask permission to access and hunt.
Watched a video where wranglers went into the public land and chase a seizable herd of elk back to private, after all the elk cross the 10ft pole fence snapped up.
Corner easement crossing would be fair to access the public land by first come parking spot just like some of the Federal/State waterfowl hunting areas.
I'm torn on this as well and I agree with both Wyelk & Dale.
Hypothetically ....... At the 4 corners the two property owners each put up 20 posts that are, say 15 feet tall and place them 6 inches apart going about 4 feet in each direction - effectively creating a situation making it almost impossible to "corner cross. You can't touch the posts, as they are privately owned and realistically couldn't get over any other way. Wouldn't that stop anyone from crossing?
Thanks to these guys fighting this and taking it to the courts, I’m convinced that states will have designated access points to gain entrance to all public federal lands in the near future. It may not be convenient areas but it will happen.
"Describe how you are impacted if a hunter steps from public to public"
I don't have a problem as long as the corner is surveyed and legal marked. Not a guess from a gps.
"Hypothetically ....... At the 4 corners the two property owners each put up 20 posts that are, say 15 feet tall and place them 6 inches apart going about 4 feet in each direction - effectively creating a situation making it almost impossible to "corner cross. You can't touch the posts, as they are privately owned and realistically couldn't get over any other way. Wouldn't that stop anyone from crossing?"
Yes that is a possibility. If a landowner wants to go to that extent they have that right. I wouldn't do that but some would.
" Violating the private property air space is BS unless you shut down all aviation"
Why is that a BS law. It is limited to a certain height over property. Would you like me to fly a drone a few feet over your yard or house any time I want ?
No, I wouldn’t want you flying a drone over my lawn, but I think you probably can legally. If you want to equate buzzing a drone over my lawn with stepping across the airspace of property, to get on to publicly owned property, well……
“I hope you are wrong and believe this will not happen. No one should be forced to provide access through their private property.” If federal and or public ground, it should be able to be accessed. WYelk- do you. It agree?
Seems like there is a lot of misunderstanding about the extent of the issue. Some think it is restricted to just a few wealthy landowners. In fact, there are thousands of these corners. Who decides which ones to survey and mark? Since it is only hunters who care about this, shouldn't hunters bear the cost? Since these corners are sometimes miles apart , with no roads, the survey crews would literally need to backpack and camp in there, because the private owners don't have to let them use their private roads.
I've posted this before. This is just in my neighborhood. All prime deer and/or elk habitat. Where do you start, and who decides, then who pays for it? And who pays for all the lawsuits from the hundreds, maybe thousands, of small property owners affected?
Much of this kind of private land is a lot more expensive to buy because it controls access and often times grazing permits to the federal land. I believe that it should be accessible, but in return the owner that purchased it should be compensated for the extra cost somehow.
Under current interpretation (Carbon County jury case excepted), no he cannot, and in my county if the sheriff is called and trespassing charges are filed, either or both could presumably press charges. One would hope they all have an agreement worked out, but if B is a jerk, there might be neighborly problems.
If immenent domain is claimed and the landowner is fairly compensated is it still and issue?? I beoieve it is because who determines fair compensation. I hunt a small parcel in Iowa of all places that the state kept hammering the landowner to sell them a piece of property so they could have some more public access. The farmer finally agreed and also sold them a right of way to access it. The only way to access the parcel is to go through a little maze made out of timbers is a zig zag pattern. Legally if you step either side of those timbers you are trespassing!! The access is rough and it actually keeps most everyone out but there is access. Now the issue, this guy has more a-holes tresspassing and leaving gates open and what not cause its pretty easy to access a half mile away, through his private property. I killed a big buck in there and it would of took me 1/2 a day or better to get him out but for a fee the guy let me cross his land and I was able to drive 200 yards from my buck. At first I was pissed that he would charge me, but than he explained what had happened in the past and he was right. Lots of folks try anf do the right thing than get screwed either way. I feel the same here, the poor landowner will be damned no matter what he chooses. Shawn
Shawn, which of the thousands of landowners would the government go after for eminent domain seizure, and why? Take a look at the tiny sliver of map I posted. What would be the government's reason? To open up more land for hunting to a few hunters, when there are already millions and millions of acres available? The Wyoming Leo ruling by the USSC already ruled that "recreation" is not a valid reason. And if a corner was forced open, like this one on Elk Mountain Ranch, it would be so publicized that the hunting would be as overcrowded as every place the corner crossers are trying to get away from now.
I have personal feelings both ways. But the reason this is such a difficult problem to solve is because of the incredible logistics required by the government to make something happen, which would only benefit a tiny few and is truly not a pressing issue anywhere, specifically. Generally, maybe, but again which corner does the government attack?
Shawn, that little sliver of map I posted from my "neighborhood" has over 8,000 acres landlocked and touching corners. All excellent deer and/or elk hunting habitat. Each green square is a square mile (640 acres). And this is one tiny portion of one state. So where do you start?
I guess I can see both sides of the argument. I do think it's baloney if the public is not allowed to access the public land by air (e.g. helicopter).
But after working with the public for the past 35 years, I've learned a great deal about human nature, and that there are many people among us that are selfish, inconsiderate, and frankly, jerks. Being allowed to simply step over the corner would last about 5 minutes. Then the first e-bike would roll across, followed in short order by a 4-wheeler, then a pickup, a pickup with trailer, and finally a Winnebago. Give 'em an inch...
Anyone who doubts this is welcome to come work with me for a day. You'll be a believer by lunchtime. Good Hunting, all.
I think the simplest solution would be to turn all public landlocked land into restricted wilderness areas. Only allowing foot traffic(no pack animals). Then create a 3' buffer zone at all borders that restricts all public and private fences from being put up within that 3' buffer. It would be the private landowners responsibility to mark his/her boundaries if they choose to post it. Under a law like this, if each opposing land owner fenced their corners, there would be a 6' opening from public corner to opposing public corner, and anyone wanting access would have to go in on foot, even the bordering land owners.
X-man .. so you are for taking private land away from people? You make 3 feet of land around the total perimeter large tracts of property , that would take countless acres away from private land owners. taking only 10 square feet away is wrong. And know it is not the same as land locked federal land. 't
Let's face it, private land owners don't want the corner crossing because when you have the "public" hunting adjoining land they tend to wander and cheat to get those horns. The crowds come, things get broken and few respect the private land owner.
Private land owners like and enjoy having access to additional land that nobody else can access(hunt) and, who wouldn't ? Is it fair, no, but that's the way it is. Maybe clearly defined pathways should be established and landowners compensated and the penalties for trespass should be increased. Make it very clear that trespass fines will be servere and then public land will be open to the public.
Let's face it, private land owners don't want the corner crossing because when you have the "public" hunting adjoining land they tend to wander and cheat to get those horns. The crowds come, things get broken and few respect the private land owner.
Private land owners like and enjoy having access to additional land that nobody else can access(hunt) and, who wouldn't ? Is it fair, no, but that's the way it is. Maybe clearly defined pathways should be established and landowners compensated and the penalties for trespass should be increased. Make it very clear that trespass fines will be servere and then public land will be open to the public.
"Then create a 3' buffer zone at all borders that restricts all public and private fences from being put up within that 3' buffer"
This quote from you post says ALL borders. Even taking a way 2 square feet of private land is wrong for this type of thing. Once you start there it will never end. More is always wanted by those who do not have.
Good arguments for both sides. Here another arguments for the people who owns private property that blocks access to landlock public land you can simply cross corner fence or any fence line that is yours and go hunting on public land while us we cannot. That is my pet peeve! I have seen this many times over the years. Good for you and bad for us. Hell i say if you own land that landlock public land you are not allow to access the public land neither. I know I'm going to get shit for this but that my opinion . there is no salutations to solve this because landowners don't want to. if they did we all would not been talking about this now. We pay taxes and you landowners pay taxes but we don't get to play like you landowners do. That my pet peeve and let me have it!
There is almost always easements and access through private land to other private land. Many roads go right through, much less a walking easement at the corner. If the feds own the land on the behalf of the people, why would we not have access to it. When all of the checkerboard stuff was put together they never considered it would come to this. I don't believe it was the intent of what they were doing when they sold it off the way they did.
The title of this thread is "Corner crossing". All of my statements are/were referring to that subject. You Shane, are so narrow minded on this subject that you think everyone is out to get you. Please explain what gives you exclusive rights to land you don't own? I'd like everyone to hear that argument.
What was the purpose of this thread? Did you really expect to change peoples minds on this subject? Whining seldom sways opinions to the whiners side....I think Missouribreaks will own and use a scoped and cocked crossbow long before guys like you gain support from the general public with regard to corner crossings.
Private landowners feel that it is totally wrong to take away their right to denial of access on several square feet of their land at the corners. They are okay with denying access to 8 million acres of our public lands in order to do so. Neither side is wrong, and neither side is right. It's a debacle, and no politician is going to touch it.
X-man, you sir are just wanting something given to you , and all of a sudden you get angry because you made a statement about ALL borders to fed land and I called you out on it. LOL. I have not once said land owners should be given exclusive rights of federal land to land owners. When the land was originally bought there was no thought that oh I am going to buy this then in the future all these hunters are going to want to access it but I will deny that. I am not narrow minded and don't think any one is out to get me. please explain. I have not Whined or tried to sway anyone just stating my opinion.
The issue at hand, an issue that has never been clarified, is what property rights are attached to surface ownership and what are those rights. There are many conflicting cases that denounce the "ad coelum doctrine," an old English Common Law legal theory that many landowners claim gives them exclusive rights to air space above the surface. Such has not been confirmed by courts. If that is ever confirmed by courts, then it clarifies this situation and the rights of the landowner become known.
Until then, it is merely an argument about what rights do/don't come with surface ownership and we will continue to have a lot of debate about what it should/shouldn't be. Nobody I know wants to violate the private property rights of a landowner. Claiming airspace is a property right attached to surface ownership creates a property rights where none currently exist. Hopefully we can someday get clarification about where rights start/end and what level of exclusivity those rights have to the detriment of neighboring landowners, whether public or private landowners.
The recent Wyoming criminal case did not clarify what rights come with surface ownership, rather arrived at the conclusion that the hunters did not violate Wyoming criminal trespass statute. Maybe that clarification will happen in the civil case that is currently scheduled for Federal court. We are still in a fog as to what rights do/don't come with surface ownership and until that fog clears these debates are mostly interesting conjecture.
Let me ask you this Shane. Would you be willing to accept a ruling that forbids [you] from entering public owned land that [you] deny access to across your corners?
BTW, everyone reading this knows which one of us is whining. I don't hunt out west so no, this does not affect me personally at all. It's a matter of principal.
Whatever the current laws regarding drone flight are would not change if walk-in easements were utilized. Please don't confuse my comments on this thread with comments by others on other threads.
The issue I relate to this is corner crossing basically says you are in two places at once. You step directly over the corner, public to public, but to be trespassing you have to be in 2 places at once because part of you crosses over private land air space.
Nobody thought this would happen, and it's 100% wrong. I have zero sympathy for private owners here, EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Property value. Many of these private pieces are valued/sold/bought for larger amounts because the grant essentially exclusive access to public. Is it fair? Nope, but it's the reality we are at. It equally wouldn't be fair to cause a drop in that value by making it clearly legal.
" I have not once said land owners should be given exclusive rights of federal land to land owners. "
Hmmm, lets think about that for a minute... a popular argument is that the private land value would go down if [land owner] doesn't any longer have exclusive rights...
The value of exclusive access goes up every year to the land owners. The value of being able to access some of these pieces goes up every year to the potential users.
Access is valuable and both side's desires to either retain or gain it will only grow. If it's ever going to be addressed, sooner won't be easy but later will surely be harder.
What if I live nearby but don't actually border the public land that is not accessible? I would like to list my home for sale and say "access to nearby public land.". that would benefit me and increase the value of my property if i had access to public land nearby.
"Would you be willing to accept a ruling that forbids [you] from entering public owned land that [you] deny access to across your corners"
If that is the law then that is the law. I will fallow it (I don't own any land that land locks federal lands). Just as I would expect people to fallow a law that said corner crossing was illegal.
So, if I read all of your posts on this thread, one should surmise that as long as one jumps from public to public you're fine with that, so long as the land is surveyed and marked.
It seems as though then that if a land owner wants no feet on their property, it should fall to them to pay for the surveying and marking of the corners. Otherwise, a GPS is close enough. Precedent has already been set that it's not possible to cause damage to air while jumping corners.
I don't have access to any National Forest that isn't technically "accessible" to the general public in some way, but what I do have is easy access to many spots, including for hunting and fishing, that require many miles of rugged hiking from the nearest general public NF access point. So it is basically inaccessible to anyone but property owners.
You bet your booty that property values are positively impacted by this access. By a LOT. Is it wrong that we don't allow the Sitka Army to come through to save themselves many miles of hiking while we can ride our ebikes or ATVs from home and start hunting from there? Every year we have trespassers who want the easy way instead of paying for it, like we did.
The dirty little secret is that some famous "public land advocates" live in private National Forest inholdings where they have access like I described at my place, where the general hunting public realistically cannot access. Are they/we greedy, or just playing by the rules?
People who paid a premium for a small parcel bordering a checkerboard or corner-corner landlocked public land were playing by the rules when they bought their land. Now some others who want access to more than the many millions of acres they already have to hunt, want to change the rules. Any of them, or any one of you, are free to buy some land adjacent to landlocked government land and gain access. It is not actually "public" land like the t-shirts claim, but that is fodder for a different discussion.
Bottom line - NOBODY cares about this corner crossing issue except a few hunters who want what they can't have. The concept of "greed" cuts both ways.
I also know that nothing will come of this because "our" politicians won't touch it. It's raining here today and I had nothing better to do...:)
Makes me wonder though if one of "Their" politicians got interested in this... just imagine "The Squad" finding out that greedy land owners were hoarding land locked government land and not letting the little man in...
I support public land access. What good is land that we collectively own yet can't collectively visit with relative ease? I grew up in a state where you could not prevent a landowner from accessing their land. You can keep out everyone else but not the landowner. And, they could go to court to get a permanent easement to their property that went through your property. I collectively own every square inch of land-locked public land and want access to "my" land. Let the courts rule on this and hopefully the Supreme Court confirms so is not a patchwork of different rules state by state. As for land values, laws change and sometimes you get a price bump and sometimes you get discounted. Look at all the wetlands laws that arose. Look at the laws re endangered animals. Private land was impacted when development opportunities were restricted overnight. This is the real world and no one guarantees private land use is static from new laws.
I think land locked public is BS. As a land owner you buy the acres that you buy. That is all you have control over. To effectively cut off public land because of a foot is BS in my opinion. Just think about it with common sense and not legalities for one minute. If you buy a section of land, and have 640 acres, and someone's foot passes 6" over the corner of your land how is that a problem? How is this infringing on your land? It isn't and anything else is a lie. There is zero infringement happening.
I am sorry if property values take a dive but that is one of the beautiful risks of property ownership. I bought a house with 2 acres that is up against land that is First Nations reserve land. Nothing has happened there for eons. One day, something could happen. That could affect my land value. Doesn't matter. It's not my land, it's not under my control. It isn't even public knowledge that it is FN land. But I did my research when I bought, and that is the risk I took going in.
When you buy a house, if all your neighbours turn into meth dealers that is their prerogative. Will it affect your house value? Damn straight it will. But you control your property. If you want to control more, then it's up to you to buy more. If you want to control more property then buy more property. But controlling public property without owning it is greed plain and simple in my mind. You are wanting to control what is someone else's even though you did not buy it.
If you are being inconvenienced by someone corner crossing they are only inconveniencing your PERCEIVED ownership, not what you actually own. Because I don't think anyone can sit here and tell me they are seriously put out by someone's body hovering 6 inches over their property line for a minute. That's insanity. You're just being selfish, plain and simple. Forget all the legalities and fine print. Are you being selfish? Yes, you're being selfish. You don't own that land, it's not yours.
x-man, nobody cares about forcing access except a few hunters. Not hikers, bird watchers, mushroom foragers, weekend campers, dog walkers, granola munchers, backpackers, etc.
I agree that politicians won't touch it for a variety of reasons. But few politicians on the Left are going to pound a podium to gain more access for hunting, when many of them would just as soon see hunting go away. It's no secret that Land Tawney and the Backcountry Hikers and Anglers squad are Lefties, and they aren't framing this issue as "hunting access", but rather as a "public lands" problem. If they were to be intellectually honest and declare it what it truly is, the narrative might not be in their favor with many of their supporters.
Let's turn it around- a bunch of greedy hunters, unsatisfied with having tens of millions of acres of public land to hunt, want to force their way across the properties of honest landowners who are simply playing by the rules.
Snowing here today, so I have nothing better to do either.. ;-)
Jaq, If I hadn't been reading on here for years and respect your opinion it would look like you were only interested in this because you spent a lot of money to put yourself in the situation that you are in. I have to agree with APauls on this one though. If you buy land next to public property or any other property just know that things can change for you in the blink of an eye;) For me it is mostly neighbors who can't keep their dogs at home and an occasional teenager who rides a 4-wheeler through when I am trying to hunt. I can't seem to buy enough to keep all my problems at bay and neither can Ted Turner!!
Shiloh, I'm not locking anyone out. Anyone can access what I can access, except my property is closer to it, and I paid for that close access. Anyone else can do the same. I'm just presenting a different perspective as someone who lives in "checkerboard" country, vs the majority on this thread who live in the east or midwest and perceive/portray it as being a few rich guys locking out the poor hunters.
Sure, there are some prime corners I'd like to cross, like about half the ones on the map I posted. But until the law is changed, my county sheriff will cite me. I understand that nobody is "locking me out" except existing law, which needs to be changed, or clarified by the USSC, for this discussion to be anything but the have-nots wanting what the haves have.
X-man, if hunting was outlawed next year there wouldn't even be a discussion about corner crossing because it would be a total non-issue. Go onto any other outdoors nonhunter forum and ask about corner crossing, and the response will be "huh?". Fishermen are concerned about stream access, which is a whole different can o' worms with the different streambed ownership laws, but not about this.
Lou, I agree. I posted that hypothetical question because there are other posters (checkerboard land owners) here who would like everyone to believe that this has nothing to do with hunting or selfish private use of that public land. "It has everything to do with trespass rights" and even one foot of land is too much to give up rights to.
My point has always been that these checkerboard owners don't care about 4.5 square feet of land easement. All they care about is keeping that public government land all to themselves for the sake of hunting and/or guiding other hunters for a fee.
I suspect 90% of those owners would allow access if there were no hunting allowed at all. You agree with me on that. Which is also why there could be an angle for some extreme lefty congressman to interfere. Someone like AOC would jump at the chance to turn that government land into sanctuary just to keep the wealthy white man from "hunting" it exclusively. ... Which is why I believe it would be smarter for these land owners to agree to a walk-in only corner easement. There would be very few outdoorsmen going in there a second time once they realize how much work it is on foot, and this whole corner crossing debate would be put to rest.
I spent the day yesterday planning this and bating posters into giving up information that (as a whole) would answer the "big question". When our grandchildren are no longer able to hunt, they will look back on these moments and put the blame on the wealthy entitled greedy "pay-to hunt" crowd.
We're doing this to ourselves faster than the anti's ever could.
Someone may have said this but in Wyoming private land cannot be landlocked. Someone has to provide access. Usually by a court order and many times legal battle and compensation is granted the owner who has to give access. I think this happens quite often. (If I have something wrong here correct me) I think compensation is determined by the court thru appraisal? So... Why wouldn't that be precedent or rule for a tract of landlocked public owned land?
I requested permission, via email, to pass through private property to access BLM in Wyoming. First, the property owner thanked me for asking months ahead because most show up and knock on the door on opening day. Second, they told me they would not grant me access. Here's the kicker.....they said they restrict access to the public land to just friends and family. In other words they control access to our land. I believe that if they refuse access then they shouldn't be allowed to use it either. That's the problem, the landowners think it's their land, not all of our land. They don't pay taxes on that land but for all intents and purposes, it's theirs.
In all the corner crossing threads combined I have never once in my life read a legitimate direct reason of how corner crossing negatively impacts a land owner on the land that they bought. Not one.
I’m going to repeat the important part: “the land that they bought.”
If it can't be accessed let's start selling it and the funds go into a program to buy other pieces that are usable or increase access to existing public.
From BLM.gov: "Lands identified as excess to the Federal Government's needs or more suited to private ownership are sometimes offered for sale. The Federal Government has two major property categories which it makes available for sale: real property and public land."
A big chunk of the "checkerboard" sections in my neighborhood were purchased or traded for by the USFS back in the early 90s to provide thousands of acres of contiguous access for hunting and granola munching. So there is precedent, both for selling and acquiring.
Glunt… can you imagine the furious landowners that bought the land around the public land, initially? Dang, now they would have lost their little haven. Maybe the new private landowners will give them access to their old honey holes? :)
Rick, OTOH, when my elk honeyhole was traded by the BLM to a rancher, he continued to let us hunt it because he said he figured my partner and I "came with the land trade". But he let so many friends in there too, through his ranch, that it actually became more crowded than when it was BLM with just a 50' access point off the highway that nobody knew about.
This was before OnX, internet, etc, so one actually had to know how to read a map with a compass to figure stuff out. If corner crossing becomes a legal reality, most of the prime corners will be no better hunting than the surrounding other public land because everybody will want to "get in there".
If we sell off these land locked lands. Will the new owner get access? It’s still landlocked. What would you pay for land that you can’t access? So lack of access might drive the price down real cheap and the land owners that have it land locked now will snag it cheap. This is an interesting and complicated issue.
In Canada we have Road Allowances. Every mile the crown owns land that is wide enough for a road between properties. This is crown land and these road allowances are public. Essentially makes land locked land impossible. You can always access via one of these corridors. Hate to admit that our government was thinking ahead.
That's not much different than our road easements here in MN. I own the land out to the centerline of the road but the road right-of-way carries from the centerline of the road out to the other side of the ditch along side of the road. We are not allowed to do anything other than mow the grass in the right-of-way, and that area is open to the public. You(general public) can legally hunt in my road right-of-way as long as you stay in that boundary and don't shoot across the road, or within 500' of buildings/livestock.
I actually like the idea of a 3-5 foot property line that is public access. To late, WAY to late for that, but....would solve corner hopping, land locked etc.
As long as we're firing up the Wayback Machine, let's redo the railroad land grant deal so that checkerboards don't exist way in the future, and at the same time make a law saying any hunter can cross any contiguous corner. And throw that pesky old 5th Amendment out to alleviate any confusion 150 years into the future.
No a GPS is not close enough, unless the corner is already marked then it will get you close enough to find it. If you are only relying on the GPS i will guarantee most of the time you are stepping in private property. And no it should not be up to the land owner unless you are in a state that says land owners have to post their land. Here in WY it is up to the recreationist to know where they are so they don't trespass, not the land owner.
Most of the survey corners are NOT the actual land corners here, many fences have been moved or never put in the correct place. The fence that was moved over 7 years ago is legally the new boundary. I know a guy that built a mansion over 2 feet onto federal ground and has been fighting it since the government found out.
What if every property owner in the country took the same position as the Elk Mountain Ranch owner? Courts would be backed up for centuries with cases ranging form "Billy stepped on my grass when he was retrieving his baseball" to "That guy that was walking down the sidewalk waved at me and his arm crossed over my property line".
^^^^Exactly Greg. I had the same thoughts and didn't write them. If you look at the situation logically without getting buried into fine print legal details, corner crossing should not be an issue. It's just some legal loophole that exists that people have dig their trenches on.
Sometimes when I need to turn around in a street I actually need to use someone's driveway to turn my vehicle around. I would hate to live in a world where the second I point the nose of my vehicle towards someone's driveway someone comes charging out of the house ready to prosecute me for doing so. Yet many on this site are absolutely in favour of this behaviour. Very sad. Driven by selfishness and greed. I would have expected conservative minded hunters to be a better moral breed than this.
When a rancher is on the public side of his fence fixing a strand of barbed wire, is he conducting a commercial operation on public land without a permit? If his steer sticks his head through the fence and eats grass on National Forest without a grazing permit is that worth a ticket?
Those would be ridiculous just like a boot being in someone's airspace for a second.
Adam, on the other hand if that was the only driveway turnaround available for miles around, and other people were willingly paying him $12,000 to turn around in the driveway, and the Supreme Court had already ruled (vaguely) that he has the right to do that, it would be a different story. Nobody is making you use that driveway. You just do it for convenience, not necessity. So your analogy needs to reflect the Elk Mountain (and hundreds, maybe thousands of other landowners) situations.
