Contributors to this thread:
Helicopter to Access BLM?
Thinking about contracting a Helicopter to access a sizeable chunk of landlocked BLM land in Colorado for an elk hunt...Does anyone know the rules or legality surrounding this topic?
Check with BigFin. He has done it in Montana and probably knows about CO too.
If it’s Unit 40 I have heard rumors. “Total hearsay of course”. That the local ranchers call the game wardens about game harassment. Because they don’t want any one to be able To hunt the land locked govt land. I would check with the local authorities. Don’t rely on just reading the state laws.
How far away are we from drones being able to pick us up and drop us off quietly?
Drones lifting people up and transporting them is already a reality. Not commercially available but you can build your own drone transport… If you're crazy enough!
I only need it to get me about 6' off the ground:) Gonna need a big engine though!
IMO it seems unjust to have Government land that is inaccessible to the tax paying public. Stole the idea from Randy Newberg, seems crazy enough to work.
Seems like what it would cost to rent a chopper you could strike up some kind of cash deal with the landowner to drive/hike a crossed his land.
If it’s like most situations now, an outfitter has private land leased and uses that as a means to block public access to federal land. This allows outfitter to dramatically increase the land he has to himself and his clients! Seen it over and over again here in MT!
Would seem that as long as your on balm and didn't touch private to get there it would be fine. No land owner owns the airspace above it.bet it would pretty expensive to rent the chopper.
Google search reveals rental rates $300-1,000 an hour depending on size. Figure drop trip in and extract trip out, total rental 5 hours. $1,500- $5,000 depending on size of helicopter. Edited :a third trip to bring out meat!
Not many landowners going to let you walk accross and access “their elk” for cheap when even average hunts are 5Gs and primo area pushing 15Gs .
NOTE*** some helicopter rental sites clearly state : will only take off and land at paved airports no grass strips or undeveloped landing sites.
Best case Scenario ‘make friends with helicopter owner.’
I've done it five times with helicopter. I've tried and applied to do it in CO, only to find out that the BLM lands were enrolled in a RFW program and therefore I needed to get my tag from the RFW operator if I wanted to hunt those BLM lands. I declined to buy the tag from a RFW operator so I could hunt public lands. I ate the tags I had drawn in the public draw.
As for details, I can probably help you out. A few things right away.
1. USFS does not allow helicopter landings, only BLM.
2. You must land on an existing two-track or other motorized route.
3. Your transporter must be licensed for landing on BLM lands. Find the transporter with the BLM fire support contract or permitted for seismic work and you should be set.
4. Forget "jumping off a skid" as an idea to get around the two-track idea. You'll never get a transporter to allow that.
Probably a few other questions. Ask here or PM and I'll do what I can. If you plan it right, you can minimize your airtime, you'll be surprised how inexpensive it is when split among 2-4 people.
Interesting thread...in particular, the notion of using drones to lift one off the ground by only 6'. Supposing that the drone technology supported that...would it be trespassing to "hover" over someone else's ground at say 6'? 25'? 100'? As long as your boots aren't touching the ground, then how high up would one need to be so as not to trespass?
Jdee. I think most would rather pay more for a chopper out of principle.
Never heard of it before..... what is a RFW program? Can someone lease up BLM hunting rights? The rancher that has BLM grazing leased can control hunting or has private tags associated with it? Never heard of such a thing as that regarding BLM land. Must be just a CO thing? CO control over BLM land or CO state land?
FAA considers navigable airspace as being above 500'. Unmanned drones can fly below that. The USSC ruling on private ownership of airspace (the infamous "corner-crossing" dilemma) didn't specify how high it goes, only that it exists and is part of private property rights.
If you owned your own helicopter would you still need to be licensed to land on BLM?
TD, CO has a program euphemistically called "Poaching For Wildlife" (actually Ranching For Wildlife) where they get guaranteed tags to sell in exchange for allowing a few peasants like you and me to draw tags for the ranch through the regular public draw. Hill Ranch, Silver Spur, etc.. The ranch gets to effectively set their own seasons and weapons. Many of the Famous TV Hunters are filmed there, especially the rifle elk rut hunts.
I was not aware that BLM could be locked up like that, even if the surrounding private was enrolled in RFW. Other BLM can't be leased for hunting.
TD asked, "Never heard of it before..... what is a RFW program? Can someone lease up BLM hunting rights? The rancher that has BLM grazing leased can control hunting or has private tags associated with it? Never heard of such a thing as that regarding BLM land. Must be just a CO thing? CO control over BLM land or CO state land?"
I had never heard of it either. But in CO, a RFW operator can petition the BLM to allow him to enroll the BLM lands in his RFW operation, thereby increasing his enrolled acreage and the number of tags allotted.
At the time I applied for a film permit from BLM, Three Forks Ranch has BLM lands enrolled in their RFW operation. I was told my public deer and elk tags I had acquired would not be eligible for use on the BLM lands enrolled in the Three Forks Ranch RFW program.
Maybe it has changed, but I doubt it. There is some prime elk and deer hunting on those landlocked BLM lands and it would not have been very expensive to fly in with a helicopter when split among three guys.
But, unless the law has been changed by the CPW Commission or the Three Forks Ranch no longer enrolls those lands, it is not an option to hunt those BLM lands unless you have a RFW tag purchased from the Three Forks Ranch.
Yeah, I know what you are thinking; WTH?
So, if drones could fly over, with today's high power rifles capable of crazy long range shooting could you shoot from one piece of public land over a piece of private land and into another piece of public land. My gut is repulsed at the idea but what would the letter of the law be?
In Alaska no helicopter for anything related to hunting is allowed. Even in an emergency rescue you must leave all gear and game behind.
In Alaska no helicopter for anything related to hunting is allowed. Even in an emergency rescue you must leave all gear and game behind.
In Alaska no helicopter for anything related to hunting is allowed. Even in an emergency rescue you must leave all gear and game behind. Sorry x2
In Colorado it is illegal to shoot over private property.
Apauls, say that was allowed. How do you intend to retrieve the animal you just killed?
Blm ant state land hunting rights can NOT be leased. Landowners who's land locks tons of acres of blm and state land sell " Ranch Only " tags, then illegally allowing the clients to take advantage of all of those acres of public land. It's revolving cycle that imo will never be stopped.
Splitlimb, in CO the rules are different than wherever you're from. Almost all state land in CO is leased to adjacent private owners and public access is not allowed unless the CPW lease hunting rights from the State Land Board.
And as Randy explains, landlocked BLM can be registered as part of the RFW program so illegal for the public to access even if you helicopter in.
If what Randy is saying is true, that's just scandalous. While there's precedent for states making rules for federal land hunting (ala WY wilderness rule), a state allowing individual ranches to block public land from public use for financial reasons is just... oh wait, WY wilderness outfitter welfare...
They may be able to do it, but it's BS. It's not right.
How many acres of public land are not public because they are landlocked by private property? Does this happen in states other than Colorado?
Up here in NoCO where I live there are thousands of acres of landlocked and checkerboard where only adjacent landowners can access. Exists in pretty much every western state that has National Forest and BLM..
The thing to remember is that just because it is held in a government trust for "the people" doesn't mean the people can legally access it for recreation.
All state land in new Mexico is leased as well. For ranch purposes, grazing cattle etc. Only time a private land only hunter is allowed to hunt any leased state land is for antelope hunts through our A-Plus system . As far as leasing the state land it does happen, to graze cattle.
There's a guy in Nevada who owns a rocket, you may be able to hire him to send you there ballistically
Big Fin's Link
Splitlimb, I've seen first hand alright. In a walk in only area my buddy and I we're hunting a few years ago, we watched as RO (I'm assuming a written permission slip in tow) hunters, accompanied by "guides" in pick ups drove them thru the gate hunting the public side on blm. So yes, it happens quite frequently. Illegaly.....
Here it is verbatim, from the CPW Commission Rules on Ranching For Wildlife:
"Federal and State Lands - Ranches may include Federal land in-holdings if they are completely surrounded by the enrolled ranch lands and there is no public access to these lands by legal road or trail. "
Link provided. Look to Part II, Paragraph C,
Big Fin is correct (no surprise). The BLM isn't blocking access, they are just saying its ok for the State to include a parcel in this program. When that happens its like the WY wilderness law. Your tag good for unit "X" simply is not valid on RFW property in that unit. My understanding is that you could still helicopter in there to camp, fish, and likely to hunt any species that isn't part of the ranches RFW program. Most folks aren't aware that RFW ranches can include landlocked public.
I'm not a fan of RFW or the way our landowner tag system is set up. RFW was recently expanded to a Bighorn sheep program. I think we over-valued the right to access the land and under-valued the ram tags the ranches get.
The reason it's BS is that the entire reason for the RFW program is to reimburse land owners for wildlife eating grass on their land to encourage them to not make decisions that negatively affect wildlife. There's ZERO reason to reimburse landowners for wildlife eating grass on land that does not belong to them.
Some people here need to read the CFRs applicable to landing aircraft within each land designation. Luckychuky you’re wrong you do not leave the animals and gear. I fly helos in Ak and I know of situations when we were used to extfil animals and gear but it’s usually because someone was illegally accessing restricted areas.
Dude - that is not exactly accurate in all situations. I can't speak for non-emergency situations. For emergency situations and the Coast Guard has to respond to the scene to recover an injured hunter or fisherman, they often will not haul out all of their gear and animals. They will recover the injured person, maybe a personal pack or two and go. Many a rescued hunters had to leave their gear/critters and come back to get it later. They rarely tow boats (like duck/deer boats) that are left behind unless it is declared a nav hazard or some other unique, official reason. That's not just in AK but the other states too. It gets into safety, liability and precedent issues. Many years ago when I first went in the CG, there were stories of commercial fisherman who would stay out and fish, run out of fuel and then call the CG to tow them back in for free. The CG eventually wised up to that.
Thank you to John.Bonez for starting this thread. Big Fin and Jaquomo provided a lot of facts that should upset everybody who thinks that public land is open for public use.
This issue infuriates me, to know all these greedy ranchers locking up public land are getting away with it. and taking game that is a public resource, all for their own. (I know not all ranchers are greedy just in case you took that wrong). It just makes my blood boil, because I was directly affected by it when I lived in Montana. Tried to get on public land to hunt, but would have had to cross about 30 feet of private to get on. They refused, and I ended up going in on about a half day hike just to get to a spot I could have accessed in 20 minutes if they hadn't locked it up. Its total BS, and wrong. And even more infuriating that some govt. agencies condone it and even support it with funds.
Having access is one thing, having convenient access is another whole issue.
"Forget "jumping off a skid" as an idea to get around the two-track idea. You'll never get a transporter to allow that." Don't agree. It probably varies.
That is CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!! So some ranchers are actually getting paid(from our tax dollars) for land they do not even own???!!! Only in AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : (
How are they getting paid from tax dollars? The RFW program simply issues tags to the ranch to distribute as they want, and they let some public hunters at no charge as part of the deal.
Trapperkayak, as our county sheriff told me when I asked if they woukd prosecute me for corner-jumping all the checkerboard in our area, "People pay a premium price for land that adjoins public. If you want to access that area you should buy some land like they did". He also said they would absolutely prosecute me (and do) if I was on NF since I had to prove how I got there legally.
I've had multiple meetings in the same unit year after with wardens because of ranchers posting public land as private, trying to deny access , things of that nature. Went over our maps and showed him how I would be accessing certain areas of the checker board by crossing corners just to avoid accusations later from the greedy rancher, this one is truly a greedy bastard!
Splitlimb, you're lucky they don't prosecute for corner jumping where you are. In my area the game wardens don't prosecute because they can't prove "intent to hunt", so they turn it over to the sheriff for trespassing and he issues the ticket.
Just curious, what makes that rancher especially "greedy"?
Splitlimb: NM is gray when it comes to corner hopping (i.e. crossing diagonally at an X-shaped intersection of 4 property lines). It's not spelled out as "legal" but it's also not spelled out as "illegal" (some other states specifically define it as "illegal"). I've gotten differing answers when asking people in NM. One particular sherrif, who may happen to be the landowner's brother, may treat you differently than another.
OK Jac- I thought this was a Federal Program. Evidently it is a (CO)state program? Where does the money actually come from then?
Grasshopper is more familiar with the budget than I, but as I understand it there is no money involved besides the license fees paid by the (mostly NR) hunters who hunt the RFW properties. So CPW makes money from licenses, ranchers make money from outfitted hunters, and a few general hunters get to hunt a $15000 ranch for just the price of a license.
Well, IMO it still ain't right if they are getting money for public land that they do not even own!
Carl, I couldn't agree more. To bring more frustration to the table, we had SEVERAL pictures, eye witnesses, and hunters willing to testify that there were RO clients elk hunting on state, and blm where we were . Three wardens showed up to camp we turned everything over to them including pictures, and only one of the three seemed to want to go take action about what was going on. We were told they were going to build a case and charge the rancher ,because he was aware of what they were doing , and all the hunters . On one occasion a trio of RO hunters saw us photographing them they literally ran to their UTV drove as fast as they could to the private property and RAN into the woods. It was swept under the rug.
I don't blame the landowners. Their job is maximizing the return on their investment. When a business is given inventory for $0.00 and can sell it or leverage it to bring in thousands, it only makes sense that they participate and look to grow that program. It's us (the CPW) that I feel isn't valuing our wildlife high enough. When the Hill Ranch, Three Forks, etc sell at a premium price partly due to "my" wildlife adding value to their land, we don't get a check.
I hadn't looked in on this thread as I have no intent of renting a chooper....in 2004 or 2005 I served as a sporstmans rep on the RFW review committee. I will have to dig up my final report and recomendations. The ranches were ABSOLUTLEY not allowed to hunt any adjacent public lands - it is a private lands program only. Jerry Apker has now retired, not sure who runs the program now, but I will find out.
"He also said they would absolutely prosecute me (and do) if I was on NF since I had to prove how I got there legally." Guilty until proven innocent? It's possible you could have hired a helicopter. It shouldn't be your burden to provide evidence of that, but rather for the other side to get pictures of you climbing the fence to get in or pics/casts of your foot prints (tip: just wear oversized boots that don't match up to your regular ones).
I think Big Fin and other are being fed a line of BS about RFW and landlocked lands. The document referenced at Big Fins link is program guidelines for enrollment, not regulations. While I am not an attorney and not giving legal advice, you can't be written a ticket based on "guidelines". Citations are written based on regulations and statutes. Regulations for RFW are found on page 27 at the link, and I can't find squat on public lands restrictions for the pubic.
RFW might have some mention in Colorado revised statutes, I will look at it later.
If anyone choppers in, and gets a ticket for hunting public land - I'll give you a benjamin for your attorneys fees in a go fund me fashion.
The guidelines Big Fin posted just says the landocked fed land may be included in the RFW contract. Does it say anything about excluding anyone else with a regular season tag?
I can't find anything in CRS, the question in my mind is does the rancher have an exclusive right to use to use lease in place that would prohibit public use? I don't know if the BLM or FOrest Service does that sort of thing, one could call to investigate.
Further, I would call Heather Duggan, chief law enforcement officer at CPW. Tell her you have read the regulations as found on CPW web page under the "about us" link, and reviewed CRS, and believe you have the right to go hunt those publicslands with your valid license. I'd then ask her if there was any specific regulation that would prohibit you from doing that.
I can't find anything in CRS, about RFW - but that doesn't mean there isn't. I would ask Heather.
I did find the following in CRS. If someone post public land or INDICATE as private - 20 point violation, which I believe is loss of hunting priveledges, and a whopping 150 fine
Based on my recollection RFW operators are not allowed to hunt on public land, it defeats the purpose of the program. There has always been a push to get more ranches enrolled, which some like and some don't. They often suggest reducing the acreage requirement, but lowering that just further privatizes wildlife
I'm no lawyer either :^) , but the CPW map of Three Forks shows a bunch of landlocked BLM included. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/ThreeForks.pdf
If I was going to chopper in, it wouldn't be to three forks. The review committee I served on came about based on folks complaining about the northwest region. CPW manages those GMU's for maximum hunter opportunity, and the ranches try to manage for quality animals. It is a conflict of objectives and you know how that elk migration works as they head west to winter.
Who wants to partner up on a chopper into unit 40? I think it takes 4 points, so I am a few years out.
Anyone doubting Three Forks has/had BLM lands enrolled in the RFW program, I suggest you call the CPW office and ask if Three Forks currently does, or ever has, enrolled BLM lands in their RFW program. Unless the CPW staff, local RFW coordinator, and the BLM all decided to feed me the same false story, I suspect they will tell you that in 2009-2013, and probably yet today, Three Forks enrolled landlocked BLM lands in their RFW program and hunters were not allowed to hunt those enrolled landlocked BLM lands unless they purchased a tag through the RFW operator, which in this case was Three Forks Ranch.
Here’s how to get extracted.
If the RFW offered the peasants the same dates their big money guys get or even the access then it would be an alright program. Right now it is a joke and not very well supervised. The new sheep allotments are a disgrace.
Lou, I corner hopped several sections and there were openings between the fences in the corners to 'let you through'. I fail to see how that could be 'illegal' as long as you are not setting foot on any private chunks of corner. Since it was all delineated by barbed wire fence, the property was easy to distinguish between public and private, and with the maps I had, I cannot imagine being prosecuted for staying on public land even when hopping over the corners. I'd do it again in a heartbeat and let them try to bust me for trespassing. I don't think they would win in court (I could be wrong, if they are crooked sobs). I'd have crossings documented on video, and fight it tooth and nail if they tried. This was in Montana when I did that, in the 80s. I was not hunting.
TrapperKayak: the reason that Big Fin did it and others are considering all of this is because corner hopping (especially if you filmed it) is currently prosecutable in most states.
Corner crossing not being allowed should be changed. It has been enforced but only one way. Lets say a rancher that borders Forest Service has a grazing allotment that starts July 1st on the public adjoining his ranch. In June, one of his steers stretches his neck through the barbed wire to grab a bite of grass from the Forest side of the fence. Does anybody think a ticket for illegal grazing would ever be issued? Of course not.
If that rancher doesn't have any public grazing but corner crosses Forest to get cattle to another piece of private property that he adjoins at a corner, would he ever get a ticket for crossing the Forest the opposite way we aren't allowed to cross at the same corner?
If a baling twine salesman a rancher doesn't like, see's the rancher in his field, stops on the road walks to the rancher's fence and stretches his arm over his fence line waving to him, would the sheriff write the salesman a trespassing ticket?
Those are silly examples but no sillier than a property owner crossing a few inches of airspace to lift a foot from his own property and set it back down on on his own property.
Have there be cases of corner crossing successfully prosecuted? I don't remember any, but I could be mistaken.
Not sure. I know it has been enforced, meaning a ticket issued, but not sure about defendants losing in court.
CC may or may not be cited in WY, it's on a county by county basis. Game wardens will not cite regardless.
Trapperkayak, the USSC already ruled that corner crossing is illegal. This has been hashed-out in previous threads. The question is whether local LEOs enforce it. In my county they do, mostly because there are so many "corners" leading into otherwise landlocked parcels and now with GPS people are getting bolder about it.
I don't agree with the ruling but but it is what it is. Sheriff is an elected position and influential constituents carry more weight than some guys from out-of-town who want to hunt someone one else's exclusive landlocked chunk of government trust land.
So do rfw have to buy a usage permit to guide on BLM or national forest like other Outfitters in Colorado?
We charge several guys each year for corner jumping, and most time the f&g charges them with criminal trespassing with the intent to hunt. Several guys last year spent the night in jail and had to bond out. A law is a law, and it doesn't give anyone the right to disobey it cause you disagree with the law. The area we protect is ownered by someone out of state, not a rancher. It's not marked, just fenced. The homeowners want it protected cause several years ago, a hunter sprained his ankle and search and rescue was called in. The man actually tried to sue the land owner. So, we watch it, have cameras up and the local sheriff love getting the call.
I have a very hard time believing someone would get convicted of trespass with intent to hunt if they are corner hopping their way to a chunk of public land, never stepping on private, and an even harder time believing someone would get convicted of it.
What does the sprained ankle have to do with corner hopping? How could the guy sue the landowner if he was on public land when he sprained his ankle? If he did it on private it means he was trespassing and that's a totally different issue.
I see absolutely zero problems with corner hopping and will do it with a clear conscience, if necessary. If I have to pay a trespassing fine someday, so be it. It will still be cheaper than paying for trespass fees.
NoWiser, your comments about breaking the law with a clear conscience are pretty funny considering your posts on the e-bike threads! Seems like your ethics are situational depending upon what's good for you.
People are prosecuted for corner-hopping, and the USSC ruled on it in the Leo Sheep Company case. That's the bottom line.
My personal ethics are based on what I believe is right and what is wrong. I firmly believe it is wrong to keep the public off of their land when they can access it without stepping foot on private property. This has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts on e-bikes (which I stand by.)
Do you think it's ok to lay off the brake and go 56 mph down a hill? Or for a 20 year old to come back from deployment and have a beer with his dad? If you think either of those make a person unethical I guess your above argument holds water and I'm selfish.
Great response, NoWiser. Situational Ethics explained. Nowhere in the Forest Act does it say the public has a right to access land held in the government trust. It is not the "public's" land. That's a common misconception. What the USSC ruled is that you are trespassing if you cross corners.
I just got off the phone with our sheriff a few minutes ago after discussing this very topic. We're working together on a strategy to bust some weekend folks who are trespassing to get into NF and causing problems, who believe the same way as you. I don't think he would buy your "what I believe is right and wrong" explanation while taking a ride into town in the back seat of the Sheriff's Department SUV...
The leo sheep company case has absolutely nothing to do with corner crossing. It was a road easement dispute across private land. Someday it'll get figured out but for now, I call the Leo and go from there. Where I'm hunting the game Dept doesn't write, deputies don't write, and the county da doesn't prosecute.
The Causby case established airspace above private property and the Leo Sheep Company case ruled that there is no access from one corner of government land to another at the corner. (you are correct, they wanted to build a road but the USSC ruling was broader than that. It specifically addressed access at corners).
Much like other discussions where the law is sort of fuzzy (see: pedal-assist bikes) it's up to local LEO whether they want to cite someone and test the law.
You can't get cited in wyoming, I know guys that are trying. One LO put 2 signs at the corner so you have to push thru them and they still can't get a ticket.
I hope to one day own a section that gives me access to the 4 national forest sections around it that no one can get to, and maybe more on the drive in. Or 40 behind some huge ranch.
This is from the USSC case and ruling document on Leo Sheep Company:
"These sections lie to the east and south of the Seminoe Reservoir, an area that is used by the public for fishing and hunting. Because of the checkerboard configuration, it is physically impossible to enter the Seminoe Reservoir sector from this direction without some minimum physical intrusion upon private land. In the years immediately preceding this litigation, the Government had received complaints that private owners were denying access over their lands to the reservoir area or requiring the payment of access fees. After negotiation with these owners failed, the Government cleared a dirt road extending from a local county road to the reservoir across both public domain lands and fee lands of the Leo Sheep Co. It also erected signs inviting the public to use the road as a route to the reservoir."
An earlier court ruled that the checkerboard sections had an implied "easement" to allow crossing at the corners. The USSC reversed that ruling and determined that there is not an implied easement because there is no way to do it without "minimal physical intrusion on private land". So effectively, the USSC ruled against the federal government in this case.
Is a 2' wide human really an "intrusion"? The bigger issue is that in the eyes of the court it appears private property rights (and the right to use adjacent government-owned property) trumps the general public's right to access for recreation. Montana tried to pass a state law allowing corner-crossing but it didn't pass. Too many influential property owners with checkerboard situations, probably.
Bob, you're lucky:
"The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is willing and able to investigate suspected corner crossing with intent to hunt or fish and refer those cases to county prosecutors, said Scott Edberg, assistant chief of the department's Wildlife Division."
This is what it looks like just east of my place. Great deer hunting and pretty good elk hunting. And every one of these property owners has the Sheriff dispatch on speed dial.
"Bob, you're lucky:
""The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is willing and able to investigate suspected corner crossing with intent to hunt or fish and refer those cases to county prosecutors, said Scott Edberg, assistant chief of the department's Wildlife Division." "
It's not luck
Note : "with intent to hunt". That refers to intent to hunt the private land and at that, becomes a criminal trespass issue. They refer that issue to the DA because the Game Dept wardens can not cite for criminal infractions (Title 6).
I talked to the Dept Chief Warden a cpl weeks ago and told him I drew a unit XX Elk tag and was going to corner cross, who's property was adjacent, and asked him point blank if he or one of his guys would write a ticket. He laughed and said, "I'll give you the dept's stock answer then we can discuss". "We suggest you don't corner cross." "Now, the reality is, it depends." "If you cross into private with intent to hunt that private, or you enter land you know is private because of signage, verbal communication, etc., it's criminal trespass and we refer those to the Sheriff." "If you cross from BLM to BLM, we will not write a ticket." I asked if a Deputy would write me up and the answer was "not in that County". "The issue is on a county by county basis in the state of Wyoming, dependent on the County DA's interpretation of the circumstances of the individual incident". I asked about the oft mentioned "airspace" and he dismissed it.
I also talked to the Game Dept Law Enforcement Coordinator on Wednesday and asked the same question regarding crossing in the unit I drew. "That County DA does not prosecute for corner crossing if you go from public to public, but, I think they do in 33333 County."
Good for you, Bob. You did your due diligence, unlike some guys who just decide to go for it because they don't agree with the laws.
I spend quite a bit of time in that "33333" county and pretty sure they do prosecute. Lots of checkerboard NF from the original railroad grants, and some influential property owners.
I believe this is being looked at wrong. I think if the public has no access then nobody should be allowed to hunt the isolated public land, even the contiguous landowner. Animals need safe zones too, here is how you make some.
I have three words to describe those that have the sheriff on speed dial, real estate welfare. They are no better then the people that abuse gov. assistance, entitlement mentality at its finest.
I have the sheriff and game warden on speed dial because I and my neighbors have to deal with all sorts of scum-sucking dirt bags who ride ATVs around on private property, tear down gates, poach fish, hunt on other people's posted land and claim "they didn't know", camp on private property and claim it's National Forest, etc.. Basically believe they're entitled to do whatever they want wherever they want just because they can.
The main reason I have LEOs on speed-dial is because the courts tend to frown upon us shooting them ourselves.
Love your last line. :) I used to hunt a checkerboarded area back in the early 90s. It was a mess because for 30 years prior to my first year hunting, nobody said anything and it was all considered public land. My dad and his friends actually created many of the roads in the area when I was a kid but I didn't hunt it until I was 22. Quite a rude awakening when I got there and the private land was suddenly off limits. I will admit to cutting a few corners back in the day, but I certainly wasn't like the people you describe not being able to shoot. Or at least I hope I wasn't. It was a long time ago.
Crossing a few inches of airspace for a few seconds...good grief (!) it seems silly to me that is a ticketable crime to some wardens/etc. (clearly not all per above) any more than speeding by a fraction of a mph for a fraction of a second...
Objectively speaking, however, I probably would have a different view as a private landowner esp. if there were abuses.
"any more than speeding by a fraction of a mph for a few seconds ..." If this was enforced, imagine the anger of the public even though strictly speaking there was a crime (assuming radar was dead accurate).
There is legitimate debate of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law...
Used to be nobody got a ticket for anything less than 5 mph over the limit. That was supposedly the margin of error for radar. Therefore if it went to court it was thrown out because they could not prove the validity of the reading(within 5 mph). Not sure if it is still true with newer technology.
Corner hopping...what’s ur verticle???
If you cross a fence right at the corner your feet need not be on private land at any time. Only your body would have crossed airspace for a few seconds and only for a very tiny amount of airspace. Arguably trespassing as to be for a reasonable amount of time such as a few minutes? Regardless, this is approaching a theoretical and certainly an extremely temporary infraction somewhat similarly to going 70.001 miles/hr for a few seconds in a 70 mph zone. By what parameters is this considered to be "real"? Arguably, one rounds down not up, meaning 70.001 is 70 mph...and similarly for a very brief time interval (seconds).
What also would be interesting would be a defense in court asking any citation to be dismissed on the basis of lack any.evidence of airspace violation (photographic, etc.).
Of course, the other side might argue there MUST have been airspace violation. But again with no evidence? I think the odds are good the case would be thrown out and certainly a waste of taxpayer's money esp. if there was no private land abuse.
While I find this all interesting, I'm not versed in legal defences, so perhaps someone with more expertise than me can give their opinion of this and the other issues above.
I slowly drove through an intersection with stop sign once and got pulled over. Cop asked if I knew what he pulled me over for and I said no. He told me I ran the stop and I told him I slowed down and that’s pretty much the same thing. He pulled out his baton and starting whacking me upside the head and the asked, “Do you want me to stop or slow down?”
David, it's sort of like claiming you "only put the tip in". Either you did or you didn't.
In my county if you are in there you have to prove how you got in there. If you crossed at the corner you get arrested for trespassing.
"Private land abuse" is a nebulous term. I might argue I wasn't abusing private land by only crossing a mile of it on foot early in the morning in the dark before the landowner was even awake. The property owner would argue someone is abusing by corner crossing to a section of government land that the property owner paid 5x the surrounding per acre price to have access to that NF section. Nowhere does it say that the general public is guaranteed access to any land held in the government trust.
Either it is, or it isn't private land. As this thread indicates, some jurisdictions look the other way, others don't.
The issue is the determination of who owns that single point where the corners meet. The, say they rule that "point" is public because clear ownership can't be determined, can one cross over that point without being over the private? Nope. I'd personally like to say there should be a buffer, small enough to walk, but not drive at these points, but I do understand that infringes on private property rights.
How does the government (BLM or Forest Service employees for example) access these landlocked sections?
Jaquomo, If the county you live in is in the USA you don’t have to prove anything. It is the governments job to prove guilt, you are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Doesn’t matter what county you live in. Too many people try to prove their innocence, which often assists the governments case against them. If a LEO has enough evidence to cite someone they will, doesn’t matter what you say to them. If the LEO is asking for your side of the story they probably aren’t trying to help you talk your way out of a citation.
The trouble with that Dogman, is that often times in the case of infractions and misdemeanors, all the "proof" that is necessary, is for the LEO to say you did it. Try fighting a traffic ticket where the cop says you were going 10 mph over the limit and you say you weren't. When it comes to your word against the cop, that's always enough proof for the judge.
Idy, yes but the cop registered you going 10 mph over the speed limit with radar. That's proof. Just saying he thought you might be going 10 mph over the speed limit wouldn't impress any judge. It may be that too many people do talk themselves out of a dismissal. If you don't say anything and there is no photographic or similar evidence, I would think it's an easy dismissal unless the judge owns land with corners, etc.
Lou, that's a funny and good response, but in reality there could be "borderline" cases but I'll refrain from detail.
Perhaps, more importantly if you don't admit you put the tip in, where is the evidence? The other side has to present medical or other evidence including of course a confession. Let's hope you can't be convicted of rape, etc. just because a woman claims you raped her.
" If the county you live in is in the USA you don’t have to prove anything. It is the governments job to prove guilt, you are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. "
For precisely that reason, if the other side doesn't show up, the matter would be dismissed. They have to prove your guilt. This really is an important tenet, in many countries if charged you are presumed guilty and it is up to you to prove otherwise.
So many people when confronted by the LEO saying “I think you were going 10 over” have to say “no way! I was only going 6 over!” Bam, you just admitted guilt. If you say nothing it is on them to prove it.
"including of course a confession"...meant to say "and/or a confession" per Dogman's post.
Very good information on this thread, but as is so often the case these days much of it is VERY disturbing...
If you are in a landlocked section with no legal access then you have to prove how you accessed it legally. When I was a Park Ranger we had an understanding with the courts in the county that we wouldn't cite someone for something outside the accepted legal definitions. That was one of the first things they drilled into us when we were deputized. So long as we did that, unless the defendant could prove otherwise, violations stood no matter what hare-brained phony legalese excuse the perp came up with. And we heard some real doozies.
I suppose someone might go silent and try waiting the LEO out, as in staying in that section until he got tired and left, or died of old age. But as often happens with other violations the LEO could simply run the license number and visit the guy at home later, cite him there, make him prove in court that he accessed it some other way than at the corner (helicopter?).
You can come up with all sorts of theoretical "what ifs" and wave the Gadsden flag in court, but bottom line is that the USSC ruled on airspace and also corner crossing for recreational access by the public. The only question is whether the LEO in that jurisdiction wants to cite it or not.
So is corner crossing wrong or right, Jaq?
“Just saying he thought you might be going 10 mph over the speed limit wouldn't impress any judge. ”
Oh, that’s right.... Nobody EVER got stuck with a speeding ticket before radar was invented....
You’re overlooking the fact that in hunting/fishing regulations, there is no guaranteed presumption of innocence; in many/most cases the prosecution need only provide enough proof to create a reasonable belief.
And it’s not worth arguing about, because as soon as somebody wins a court case on the premise that it was some kind of “minute” infraction, we’ll be seeing every corner fenced off for a yard, and then 10 feet and then 20 and so on.
Weasels will be weasels on either side of the fence.... literal or proverbial.
NoWiser, I know where you're going with this. Yes, I believe It is wrong because there are hard laws tested at the USSC level that say so. I also believe in private property rights, which the USSC has ruled are violated by corner crossing.
If LEOs in an area specifically say they won't cite for it (like our local sheriff with AR magazine limits, for instance) then its up to the individual to decide how and whether to comply. Its still breaking the law while LEOs decide to look the other way.
Thanks Jaq. Nothing wrong with that, I was just curious. If you truly feel it is wrong I can understand where you are coming from and why you disagree with me.
For me its about private property rights, which I believe are extremely important. As our sheriff articulated, if someone pays a premium price for land adjoining NF with the understand that corner-crossing is illegal, then they should expect trespassing to be enforced, whether or not it's "just a little bit". He suggested I buy a section adjoining checkerboard if I want legal access. He also pointed out that there are millions of acres of BLM and NF with clear legal access on our area, and maybe I should look there to do what I want to do.
Not gonna be a problem once I get (semi)retired..... put together my Highlander, shock suspension, 31" tires, vg's, etc...... get my pilots license again..... just a half a step landing behind a copter and as private plane and pilot none of the commercial regs of fly for hire as it's not a commercial activity on fed land.
I know a couple guys that have done it. The biggest issue I understand from one of em is having to draw down on the landowners/cowboys you catch that are about to slash your tires and cut up your plane.....
Things get nasty out there. When I was a kid we floated in on a river (navigable water) to hunt a BLM quadrant that was pretty well landlocked. Had been planning and mapping it out for months. An hour later the landowner was there with a shotgun threatening us with it. Crazy old fart, we told him call the cops, it's public land. Nope. It's his land, he worked it, it's his. Was gonna blow a hole in the drift boat and we might be next, so we left. Went straight to the sheriff and he said technically we were right..... but he recommended not going there again, the guy was crazy and being right isn't so satisfying after you've been shot. We asked about the threats with the gun..... sheriff said he wasn't going to do anything about it and to let it lie. Found out later they went to high school together a hundred years ago...... times may have changed, I don't know.... but back then it was quite a lesson for a kid in right, wrong.... and who ya know.... or didn't know....
Like I said before... You have a big campaign contributor and pillar of the rural community who sponsors 4H and the rodeo team getting corner-crossed by two Sitka Commandos with Pennsylvania plates.
Wonder who will get the tip of the scale of justice??
Jaq, A citizen doesn’t have to prove anything in court. That is up to the government. They have to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Guys that have to prove their innocence end up making the case for the govt. If a LEO has enough evidence to write a citation they write it. You can simply ask if you are being detained or arrested, if you aren’t you can say have a nice day. You have to prove nothing. Maybe you parachuted in there. Who knows...that is up to them to prove. Not saying they won’t get a conviction, but in America the rules are the same when it comes to presumed innocence, whether you are hunting or walking the streets.
So how do Forest Service or BLM personnel (or people doing work for them) get access to these landlocked sections?
Dogman, I know how it works. I was an LEO, deputized in three counties. Now I manage security at two big private fisheries.
People make up wild stories. I've heard some doozies. The LEO's case is simple - there is no legal access to that section without trespassing unless you get in and out by helicopter. But dang, you forgot the name of the helicopter pilot and don't know how to contact him to verify your story.
At the end of the episode, you pay a fine, then go on social media and complain about injustice and government abuse of the Little Man, and locking the public out of "our" land.
Some very pertinent discussion here about air space: https://phantompilots.com/threads/flying-over-private-property-is-illegal.104094/
I think the landowner would not be guaranteed a win, esp. if no harm was done. Most importantly, the landowner would have to prove the boundary lines were precise and I mean down to the inch.
Additionally if the land in one of the quadrants was owned by a different land owner he would also have to be willing to sue (and afford an attorney). Keep in mind if they lose, they could be liable to pay court fees, attorney fees, and more.
Importantly, those quadrant junctions in reality may not be so tidy and if they are off just by a few feet or perhaps even inches, the so called imaginary point could be crossed w/o the hunter having violated any legal airspace (and see above link) and certainly no touching of private land by the hunters feet/body.
Two can play this game of precision, and the cost of a formal survey goes beyond what the landowner might pay and even so, it could be contested by a counter survey, a more accurate gps, and so forth.
While I may seem to be supporting the contrary position, in reality I'm opened minded. As I said above there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are tons of laws on the books that are never enforced, so I don't blindly follow all laws.
Yes, I do believe strongly in private property rights and could argue the other side...but there is a point of reduction ad absurdum esp. if boots never touched the private property.
"There are tons of laws on the books that are never enforced, so I don't blindly follow all laws." I meant to say tons of crazy (often funny) and outright stupid laws that people often rightly ignore..."
So in the spirit esp. of the first list should we add "one cannot wave one's hands or other body parts" across a land boundary line even for 1 second" ?
Or more accurately and somewhat less cheerfully, ""one cannot move one's hands or other body parts across a private land boundary line at an altitude of less 83 ft. for more than .00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds even if no one and no habitable building is within miles without written permission from the landowner due to airspace limitations"
Why 83 ft? See: https://phantompilots.com/threads/flying-over-private-property-is-illegal.104094/
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....should we also prosecute individuals who recklessly discard the laws of having an ice cream cone in their back pocket or walking backward at sunset? -- Or should we quit wasting taxpayers dollars and dismiss this case without prejudice?"
"...who owns that single point where the corners meet."
"...the so called imaginary point..."
"...the landowner would have to prove the boundary lines were precise..."
It's not a single point or an imaginary point, it's a mathematically defined point at the intersection of two lines. And it doesn't have to be defined precisely to prove a violation, as wherever it exists precisely, you would have to have crossed it.
The bottom line is the rule sucks, and everyone has an opinion about it. Either accept that you can't cross the corner or be prepared to pay the fine/trespass violation (and possible points against your hunting privileges) , or pay to fight it in court to get it changed.
Don't know where you got your 83' but here are the actual regulations in 14 CFR 91.119;
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(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.
(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
Jaq, if I am on a section of BLM that could be accessed via helicopter and I am asked to “prove” how I got there, my response would be that is your job. The individual has absolutely zero burden to prove anything. None. No LEO is entitled to have it proven. They can figure it out. Since you are/were a LEO maybe you have seen this video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE I guess the rancher that is upset about someone accessing landlocked public can go out and buy or rent himself a helicopter, cheaper (renting anyways) than a section of private ground that blacks public access. If a LEO wants to play hardball and violate a guys rights two can play at that game. https://mobile.nytimes.com/1986/03/06/us/high-court-rules-that-police-are-liable-in-wrongful-arrest.html
I have plenty of friends who are LEO’s btw, and appreciate the job they do, but some, as in all professions go a bit far.
No doubt many LEO's are overzealous. Part of the reason why I got out. If you're on a chunk of BLM accessible by helicopter you're unlikely to be bothered by anyone besides the outfitters. I'm referring to the big timber stuff in Colorado where no helicopter access is possible so people either have to walk, bike, horseback in.
Ziek, it is an imaginary point like the concept of infinity. On the other hand, yeah it's there somewhere but if you took a microscope you couldn't find it with absolute precision but with a more powerful microscope you could get closer and closer, etc.
Your comment, "it doesn't have to be defined precisely to prove a violation, as wherever it exists precisely, you would have to have crossed it." is very relevant, but the other point I made is, where the dispute is, such as at a fence juncture precise? Who put the fence there and did the put it at the PRECISE intersection? It's unlikely to be super precise. It could be many feet off. It could actually be many feet or many inches or even just a few inches off, in which case anyone could cross there w/o violating airspace.
Re: 83' if you looked at the link I provide, you would see where that came from. There was court precedent cited.
Re: you citation on altitude minimums, did you even read that closely? It did not prohibit very flight over sparsely inhabited areas. Btw, I'm an ultralight, weight shift, fixed wing, and helicopter pilot (sorta' a helicopter pilot as I don't have my rating yet).
And just to add, swing a leg over a fence (or maybe there isn't even a fence!) is not flying in airspace.
I doubt I ever will be involved in this legally, I just find it amusing/interesting. I'm not an that versed in legal matters, but logically I think a judge would decline to take this seriously except maybe in a small claims court and only then if there was provable damage. No damage, I don't think there could be any case at all. Have any of you ever been to court? I have, and this seems to be absurd unless some provable damage occurred. And what evidence? Video, photographic, plaster casts of prints, etc.? Guilty until proven innocent? This is all somewhat troubling, I have to say although yes I believe I could make a case for the other side. But in general, I would think any penalty should be appropriate to the damage done to the land owner, wildlife, or the state. Swinging a leg thru a few inches of airspace in a remote area and making a criminal case about this is truly absurd. Maybe I'm missing something here? Yes, I could understand it if fences were cut, privacy compromised, etc.
"very flight" should read "very low flight"...
I sighted the regs. because the OP asked about helicopters. The crux of the issue relates not to flying over the private parcel, but landing on the public. Whether or not that is legal, is much more difficult to determine. There may be different restrictions in different areas, depending on local ordinances.
And airspace has no relevance to trespass laws. The rancher could legally install a corner fence on his property that just extends 8 feet in both directions at the corners that would prevent a person from just "stepping over" the corner. So if he can do that, does he have to do it to prevent the act? Keep in mind that in Colorado private property borders don't even have to be physically marked for a trespass to occur.
The fact is, no matter how stupid you think the law is, it's been challenged in the past. Technically, the law is the law. If you have the time, money, and inclination to challenge it, good luck. We're all routing for you.
Ziek, it's also illegal in some states to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. In others it's illegal to walk backward at sunset. "Technically the law is the law".
You can also be on a public hiking trail and decide to take a short cut across a field and be guilty of trespassing. Are we terrified of the consequences so that we always religiously stay on the trail and never even cut across a neighbourhood lawn or school ground?
You can also merely walk up to some one's front door to say "hi" and be guilty of trespassing....think about that. In fact, wouldn't entering some's home property be more serious than a remote x spot crossing?
I have no dog in this fight, but it all is quite interesting....
We've probably all done some "minor" trespassing at times, unintentionally and intentionally. But I know that if there is a known issue that is important, or is likely important to the landowner that he will try to have enforced, I steer clear. It's just not worth the hassle.
There is another obvious problem that you guys are overlooking. You act like you will be the only one to cross at that corner, so what's the big deal? Why are you so special? If the hunting on the other side is so good, it will soon be popular. Eventually, many people will want to "step" across, then carry their mountain bike across (oh heck, I'll just ride across this time), or ride horses across, then the trail will erode and there'll be a parallel trail, etc., etc.
How wide is a property line? 1 inch or 10 feet? If a fenceline is exactly on a property line and that fenceline is 2 inches wide, the landowner effectively has some of their property on public land (for purposes of this topic).
If it's marked by an 8 foot corner, made from 4 inch posts, then likely that corner is only on private ground, otherwise the LO is stealing public ground for part of their marker. If a LO wants to cry about trespass when corner hopping, don't put your marker on half private and half public.
As far as NM goes, land has to be posted. A fence or just corners doesn't work.
"How wide is a property line?"
Again, it's a mathematically defined line, often not even physically marked on the ground. Any fences/posts should be on the fence owner's side. Survey markers at corners (if there are any) are usually set on 1/2" rebar, at least around here. I've also found more than one corner marker defining the same corner, that were set over a period of many years. Usually many feet apart. I assume that subsequent surveys were done using more accurate tools/instruments/methodology and the most current is the most accurate.
To carry the conversation farther, what would be the purpose of allowing corner crossing? These checkerboard sections are relatively small, surrounded by off limits ground. If the hunting was good, they would soon be overrun with hunters. And if you know ahead of time that a hostile, adjacent landowner won't allow you to retrieve an animal that makes it across the line (which is a real possibility for a bow hunter) would you feel comfortable hunting anyway?
While we're arguing for "pie-in-the-sky", a better solution to this issue would be to work toward consolidating these areas on a 1 - 1 exchange basis. Ranchers could be allowed to lease grazing rights on the public for reasonable rates, while opening large areas of public land to the public. Sure the ranchers will fight this, but there are more of us than them. Our default plan could be to lock THEM out of the public land if they don't agree to an exchange program. Who wants to lead the fight?
HDE, you sure about NM? Page 39 of the regs book, last two paragraphs don’t say posted, they just refer to private property.
Aspen Ghost, I have been told by BLM & FS personnel that they have to ask permission to cross private land to access the landlocked BLM or FS land or fly in, unless they have a specific recorded easement tied to the private land granting them access.
5 guys accessing some land locked public through a corner is 5 less guys hunting the easier to access public in that unit. Demand for huntable land is higher than ever, I see the benefit that could come from being able to access more of our land. I also understand that people bought land playing by the rules and changing the rules mid-game stinks. Anyone trying to draw a sheep tag in CO learned that lesson this year.
Just taking easements through law change or eminent domain isn't fair but I think before a landowner benefits from land owner tags, RFW, HPP money or game damage dollars, maybe looking at land locked issues could be part of the process.
Well, most people have all types of salespeople (window, roof, solar...religious) knocking on their doors. They are all trespassing and bothering a homeowners privacy. A hunter wouldn't normally be doing any of that at a remote checkerboard, so arguably it is a lot less serious unless of course many hunters did it (and that is NOT necessarily a given unlike the virtual certainty of having salespeople trespass on your home property!).
Plus, a hunter swing a leg over a few inches of airspace for a few seconds and not disturbing your privacy is a fraction of an intrusion vs. a sales person bugging you.
Let's face it, the real reason ranchers threaten to sue is because they want the elk etc. for themselves.
You likely have had salespeople march right up to your front door knock knock knock!!! And then start asking personal questions about your house and try to set an appointment for yet another stranger (the roofing, solar, etc. expert) to actually come into your home!
Yes, thing about that! They are not only bugging your privacy and violating your property boundaries, THEY ACTUALLY WANT ACCESS INTO YOUR HOME! And hey, not just for a chat...no no no! THEY PLAN ON GETTING SOME OF YOUR MONEY!!
Or...in the case of religious agents, they plan on not only getting some of your money, they want TO CHANGE YOUR THINKING! You're wrong, and they have the answer! Well, they will even go so far as to give threatening hints ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN TO YOU, YOUR WIFE AND EVEN YOUR KIDS ETERNAL LIFE!!
Now, IF you let them into your domain (and that is only their first goal!) heck, they may expect a cup of coffee and use of your bathroom facilities after their long wined presentation...! Plus they may ask all sorts of personal questions. E.g. "how much you paying for electricity every month? how many baths/showers do you and the wife take a day, etc."!
Now, compare to the hunter at the remote checkerboard crossing. He may not even set foot on the ranchers private property. No, his worse "crime" is he has violated a few inches of airspace for a few seconds...didn't walk across the ranchers property, didn't disturb his privacy, didn't talk to him, didn't try to get in his house, didn't want to to sell him anything or try to get his money, ask personal questions or threaten his eternal life...!
The more I think about the absurdity of hips and shoulders crossing airspace for a few seconds at a remote place far from a ranchers residence being a big deal that he would want to try to prosecute you, the more I think society has become insane...
It's NOT about the extremely transient crossing of a few inches of airspace that bothers the rancher. No, it's about the rancher keeping the elk, etc. Now that is sane. Selfishness makes sense at least.
David, it's funny that those against corner crossing advocate asking permission first, which require exponentially more trespassing than actually crossing the corner.
As members here who are against it point out, it's not so much about the airspace as it is about private property rights - namely, their right to have exclusive access to public land that adjoins their property.
"So how do Forest Service or BLM personnel (or people doing work for them) get access to these landlocked sections?"
They don't. If they don't have a legal access they can not cross private land to access federal land.
Wow David. You must live in a really strange place! I've NEVER had a salesman, or solicitor of any kind come to my door uninvited. But if I did, I would simply tell them to leave and not come back. Maybe try a sign at the beginning of your walkway? Or fire a warning shot or two over the heads of the kids selling Girl Scout cookies. Sounds like you have a real nasty problem there. lol
With today’s internet I would think door to door salesman is a thing of the past.
An Outfitters attempt to keep you off your public lands, to no avail I might add.
Wapiti - the photo you posted is so small I can't tell what the signs say...
We were trying to hunt some BLM land in ID several years ago. It had a ROW access across a part of the ranch that was supposed to be marked. We drove up and down the public road looking for it.... nothing. We had it narrowed down to maybe 1/4 to 1/2 mile, but no signs or road. All we could see was a gate with a two track across an alfalfa field with wheel line irrigation on it. Not like you just want to go driving across somebodies fields.....never did make it there, moved on to plan C or D..... I forget.
A few days later after talking to some fed guys in town and asked them where was that ROW on the map at? They told us that the two track across the field was it. They put up signs to mark it on the gate but the signs never last more than a few days. They're pretty sure the ranch takes them down but no way to prove it. They said the ranch runs some hunts on that land as well as their property. They don't like others hunting it. Apparently the ROW is in their BLM lease.
Not sure why they cannot do much the same with other BLM, require a ROW for public access from whoever has the lease.
Ziek, I live half the year in Green Valley Arizona, a peaceful retirement community of approx. 4,000. I would say I average one visit a month from from sales representatives (home improvement, religious, yard maintenance, tree trimming, etc.). Anyway, a very high percentage of home improvement is sold thru the first step of door to door sales agents who drop by to mention they are doing "free" energy surveys, happen to be reproofing a neighbours house...would you like a free roof inspection, etc etc.
Nowiser wrote, "David, it's funny that those against corner crossing advocate asking permission first, which require exponentially more trespassing than actually crossing the corner." Excellent point! If we calculated the cubic inches of violation in driving up to a ranchers house, walking up to the door (and back) to request permission, vs. a corner crossing airspace intrusion, the ratio might be something like several orders of magnitude, million: 1 or whatever...wow. But, march right up to the rancher's door and he might even respect you for asking!
I don't really have a dog in this fight as I've mentioned, but the absurdity when you really start looking at this objectively is hilarious...
Ziek, I can poke fun at myself because I owned a solar company. However, I only sold a few solar systems to persons than actually came to our office wanting to buy solar...it's a fine thing though...
The guys I know who cross corners NEVER try to find the exact corner with the intent to minimize intrusion. They simply walk through the private property using the easiest route and hope to not get caught.
And NoWiser is correct about the concern of many. There are thousands of property owners who paid premium prices for land adjoining landlocked or checkerboard sections with the understanding that they and their neighbors would have protected legal access to that government-owned land. Often multiple adjoining property owners have access, not just one filthy, greedy rich land baron.The way to resolve this is by changing the law, if possible, not by saying "Screw the law, I don't believe in it so I'll do what I want".
I know a property owner who used to freely give permission to cross into NF until he started getting trail cam photos of guys (to whom who he had given permission to cross) hunting on his property. Then he got some photos of ATVs. Give 'em an inch.... When confronted with the photos they tried to deny it. One guy tried to justify it by claiming he's been trespassing to hunt on that property long before the current owner bought it. I know how it went down because I identified a couple of the guys in the photos. Now he only lets me and one other guy cross over.
This is one of those subjects where both sides have a point. 1. Hey it’s like buying land next to a rifle range or pig farm and then later complaining about the smell or noise. 2. Land owner rights should be a huge concern for us all. Whether we like it or not they ponied up the cash to buy the land and pay the taxes. It would get very old with all the unethical people tromping around. And I do think too large percentage of hunters are greedy, slob hunters that think they are entitled to do what they like. Please don’t fall into the hater crowd because someone is fortunate enough to afford the Land we would all love to own. Or that family may have owned for generations And barely squeak out a living. Then we call them greedy land barons. It’s a tough subject and happy I am not in law Enforcement dealing with these tricky moral dilemmas. But please respect landowners rights. The federal govt would love for us all to start eroding them.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
I would rather take this one. The price of these things will drop and maybe, just maybe, if 10 years or so, landlocked land will be a thing of the past.
Colorado has a ton of hunters, all I can say from my experience in Arizona and New Mexico is the cross corners are often in remote areas that don't see much if any hunters; e.g. way out in BLM land country with interspersed with private land blocks.
Of course, I understand if an area is getting hit hard by slob hunters, it's a different ball game but that also is a slippery slope just like some people wanting to out law hunting because of all the slob hunters out there.
I do lean towards trespassing having to be more real than a few cubic inches of airspace for a few seconds...and I'll admit I don't obey all laws all the time such as coming to a rolling stop on some stop signs. I guess I would be a total misfit in Japan or Islamic countries. In general, the overriding compass for me is a) are my actions causing harm? b) are my actions moral? c) are my actions given me an unfair advantage?
My great grandfather was a sheriff in Texas and I was brought up having great respect for the law. What screwed me up was taking logic and philosophy classes in college, ha.
And in a situation where a rancher is all fired up about corner jumping when it is not a privacy issue or damage issue, there is only one explanation. He wants the game on those private land blocks for himself or his hunters. His angst has nothing to do with a transient violation of a few inches of his airspace. If that can't be admitted, we're just being dishonest with the issue.
In many parts of the world that I have been in, landowners need to provide public access to public land such as beaches, lakes, etc. Private property rights are important, private property rights are essential. But access to public lands cannot be totally disregarded.
I have my personal view, but what about the landowner, who got fed up with the lack of access, and had the cash, so laid down his hard earned cash KNOWING that got him essentially private access to BLM/public land. He may not have agreed with the law and it's now up to him to allow trespass, but he paid a premium (probably) for the land because he could and he followed the rules.
Now change the rules and the value of his land drops like a rock. Is that fair?
Yes, around here where there's a lot of checkerboard the land bordering a landlocked section generally sells for a serious premium.
David, yes, we all want access to land held in the government trust for the people. But as I posted above, nowhere in the Forest Act does it say that the general public can access that government land no matter what.
Bob in NH, no, it wouldn't be fair. But it isn't exactly fair the other way around either.
Go looking for stuff that isn't fair, you're going to be awful busy making a list.
Learned that in dodgeball 3rd grade. We had a six foot ogre with a hairy chest.
Well maybe not, but that jackass was enormous. He could whizz that thing.
He's in prison now, which oddly enough, seems fair.
Life isn't fair. I doubt when they bought that land there was anything in writing guaranteeing them exclusive access to public land in perpetuity. If they assume that they (and possibly their neighbors) will always have exclusive access, that's nobody's fault but their own.
The Causby case had relevance for airspace 83 feet to 500 ft. Not above or below that. It is still uncertain, because that case concerned damages to chickens. Ziek likes to think you can't fly less than 500 ft legally over private property, but I'm telling you as an experienced microlight pilot that is simply false. Read the FAA ruling more closely, it does not give a minimum if the land is sparsely populated and there are no nearby buildings.
A counter argument is "go ahead and go to court, it's going to cost you $20,000 just for starters". That also is false. Firstly, I know I could represent myself for free and do as good a job as many attorneys esp. if I was motivated. Secondly, one could very likely get an attorney to take this case for free or a public defender.
I'll tell you what is going to happen after all the arm waving and hysterics, it's going to get tossed UNLESS the rancher is a big rancher and has had a lot of damage related to this issue. Even so, it likely will be all threats. It has already been dismissed before I believe. And if it went to jury...just depends who is on the jury. My point is this is not an open and shut case.
Now, before attacking me with "go ahead Alford and try it", no no I don't even hunt these situations. As I have said before, I'm just interested in the logic on both sides.
You want an argument from the rancher's side? OK, if I would suggest just maybe you have to be in an airplane to claim immunity with the FAA existing regulations. If so, a propellor hat will not be convincing...
NoWiser, that's very true. The USFS could sell those adjacent sections to the landowner on the other side and then everyone else with contiguous property would be shut out. Happens all the time. Happened with my best elk spot.
Lou, could you explain why the Sheriff et al might remark "if you corner hop with intention to hunt the private land, the DA will prosecute..." Why does it matter one iota whether you intend to hunt, fish, hike, or take pics on the public land? It seems trespassing is the issue, not what you intend to do or not do once you are on public land. Just trying to understand their logic on this. I'm assuming one has the requisite hunting permit/license and is transporting any weapons in a legal manner.
David, I don't recall writing that. What happens here is the CPW warden won't cite someone for it because they can't prove intent to hunt on the private land. The sheriff considers it trespassing so thats how they charge it. And they do. People concoct ridiculous arguments to weasel out of it, then end up paying the fine. We have a ton of corner-to-corner government land in our county and a lot of hunters from the cities on the Front Range, many of whom trespass whenever they feel like it.
It's not just corner hopping at the survey marker. Sometimes that corner is choked with deadfall or otherwise impassable and the guys go wherever they feel like it. So here, trespassing is considered trespassing whether it's an inch or a mile.
"Ziek likes to think you can't fly less than 500 ft legally over private property..."
Where did I ever state that. I simply cited the the regs, which are pretty clear, and they don't state that. If they had I would have been in violation hundreds of times as a flight instructor practicing engine out emergency landings which I took as low as was safe and legal, often below the tree tops. I also stated that it had nothing to do with airspace restrictions, and that it was about trespass law.
"David, I don't recall writing that."
Lou, David often likes to get all fired up, and make up his own arguments that he attributes to others so he has something to knock down.
Hi Lou, no I wasn't referring to anything you posted but rather asked you because you have more knowledge on this than I do and I'm curious why "intent to hunt" is often joined with corner jumping. I assume only in that some game wardens might consider or actually issue a citation for the same reason they might issue a citation for poaching when a guy aims his rifle at or actually shoots a decoy deer. I want to clarify my own thinking that there really is no necessary relationship. Thx.
Ziek, I stand corrected, you did only cite the FAA regulations. Don't worry about me being all worked up, I'm tenacious but always calm lol. I am curious as why you don't think this is an air space issue.
Found this post from another forum. Comments? GREEN RIVER - Douglas hunter Bill Kearney always suspected it wasn't illegal to corner jump over private land while hunting. Now he has a state opinion backing up his contention.
The Douglas sportsmen was acquitted of trespass charges in April after he used a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to step from one parcel of public land to another while hunting in Albany County in September 2003. The practice is known as corner jumping or corner crossing.
The case prompted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to seek a State Attorney General opinion reviewing the agency's long-standing assumption that corner jumping is illegal.
The AG opinion released by the department said corner jumping from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt on the other public parcel does not violate Game and Fish regulations.
The opinion said corner jumping does not violate agency rules because, to be convicted, the rules require a person must hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission. Corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said.
"I'm just delighted with (the opinion) and think it's great … it was certainly worth spending the money and challenging this in court," Kearney said.
"A real positive aspect of the opinion is with the increasing pressure from hunters and sportsmen and rockhounds and whoever … it's a good thing that could result in public access to large tracts of public lands," he said.
"The Game and Fish can now use its license fee money and not waste their time dealing with people legally accessing public lands in court."
Corner jumping describes the practice of stepping over the corner created where four sections of land meet in order to reach a cater-corner parcel of public lands.
Kearney stepped from one parcel of public land to another. The parcels met at a corner where two pieces of private land also meet.
Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland said the opinion means the agency will change its method of handling corner jumping complaints.
"If somebody calls us and tells us there's corner jumping occurring, we'll simply tell them we don't have the authority to do something about it," Cleveland said in a phone interview.
"If they call us on a trespass situation and we get out there and find it's a corner jumping complaint … then we'll tell them they should take it up with the county sheriff or the county attorney," he said.
Bob Wharff, executive director for Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said while he fears the ruling might chip away at private property rights, it could lead to more open and frank discussions about access to public lands.
"Even the best GPS units that are available are only accurate to three meters and three meters doesn't get you close enough to say you're actually jumping from corner to corner," Wharff said in an interview.
"I think it's a dangerous precedent that the opinion sets … we're all for access, but I'm real nervous about private property rights and the erosion of those rights," he said.
"But on the other hand, we may see that there's going to be a little bit more willingness for landowners to come to the table and talk about access … and ultimately help us broach some of those roadblocks (to access) that may have been there in the past."
"So it looks like it depends on who is doing the interpretation. BLM is Fed Land so if I was ticketed for using Fed Land without stepping on private land I'd be getting a lawyer and seeing what the Feds have to say since state law can't overrule Fed law. An organization like SCI or DSC would probably take up the case pro bono since they protect hunter's rights."
Specifically, if the most accurate GPS is approx. 3 meters., how can trespassing be proved within those constraints? The fence hopper may actually be hopping from public land to public land with no airspace violation either.
All very interesting isn't it?
That article is one of the worst pieces of "journalism" I've ever seen. Titled "corner hopping ruled illegal", and often cited by those who think it's illegal, nowhere within that article does anyone state that it's illegal.
This article reinforces the position in CO. It doesn't violate any CPW regulations so its up to the local sheriff. CPW doesn't get involved. Wharff is an idiot. If he gets a trespassing ticket by a county sheriff, the feds won't get involved because no federal violation occurred.
All that article says is that it's not a hunting violation. It doesn't address nor challenge the trespass issue. It just passes the buck.
"Specifically, if the most accurate GPS is approx. 3 meters., how can trespassing be proved within those constraints?"
Really David? The corner exists. If you need a surveyor to determine where it is, get it surveyed. There are no "constraints" due to GPS. If it's not accurate that is no excuse. That defense actually is not in your favor. If corner crossing were legal, and if you didn't cross the corner because of inaccurate GPS, or any other method used to determine it, then in fact, you did trespass. And, in Colorado and probably other states, it's up to you to know where you are, not the landowners responsibility to mark his borders.
This discussion amazes me. In no way, should purchasing ANY property, at ANY price, guarantee you sole access to lands owned by anyone other than yourself. If you didn't buy it, you should have zero exclusive right to use it, period. Thinking you have exclusive rights to use public ground because you bought ground next to it, and passing this off as a "private property rights" issue, is beyond laughable.
I would have to agree with folks that re-confirm the fact that we are not guilty until proven so. Lou, it really sounds like CO is turning into a cesspool of people that think they get special rights because of the thickness of their wallet. It is interesting to see the mindset of others from various areas of our country. My mindset likely seems odd to some from other areas or backgrounds.
Colorado and many other western states have archaic laws that are very old and should be revisited. Our checkerboard land issues are 19th century holdovers from when the federal government sold land to help build railroads. They sold every other section within 20 miles of the railroad lines, creating the checkerboard mess we now have.
Colorado and many other western states also are "free range" states. That basically means that livestock can go anywhere. If you don't want them on your property, YOU have to fence them out. The rancher is not responsible for fencing them in.
Combined, this makes the "checkerboard" very advantageous to ranchers, while "locking up" public land to the public. It would take a very determined effort to shake these lands out of the current system. Personally, I don't think corner crossing is an acceptable solution. These lands should be consolidated into larger contiguous blocks of public and private with access to the public lands. I can think of many ways this could be done using a "carrot and stick" approach to get cooperation from the ranchers. But it wouldn't be easy.
"It doesn't violate any CPW regulations so its up to the local sheriff."
I would agree, and at that point it becomes trespass or criminal trespass. Several states have criteria that need to be met for criminal trespass; MT, WY, and NM that I'm aware of. The verbage is essentially the same for those states.
45-6-203.?Criminal trespass to property. (1) Except as provided in 15-7-139, 70-16-111, and 76-13-116, a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly:
(a) enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure; or
(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.
And, back to where we started, does your County DA believe crossing thru air space meet the requirement of "entering" the premises of another?
Not where I hunt.
"These lands should be consolidated into larger contiguous blocks of public and private with access to the public lands. I can think of many ways this could be done using a "carrot and stick" approach to get cooperation from the ranchers."
This already happens. The problem is, the way it works, is the rancher buys some crap parcel that is worthless to you and I, then gets with the public officials who they either know or their boss knows, then in a smoky back room, some cash changes hands, and presto-chango, the rancher buys lands for pennies on the dollar their worth and we now have new public lands that might hold sage grouse in 20 years and lose lands that have elk, deer, and harvestable timber on them right now.
True Idyll: here in NM anytime land is consolodated it's a sure bet the rancher gets the prime habitat and the public gets barren ground. Or the rancher gets the swath of barren ground that landlocks the prime habitat...
Just north of me the USFS and DOW consolidated a bunch of railroad sections into a great hunting and recreation area. Many of the other checkerboard sections are surrounded by 40-160 parcels with houses, which made it virtually impossible to buy. So it's not one landowner in many cases. There may be 4-10 owners who bought adjacent to NF. I know of some easements but often only friends and family are allowed in.
Bullhound I tend to agree with you.
It's kind of the way of the way of the world though.
Money talks and who you happen to know trumps right and wrong more often than it should. Not much you can do about it, so it isn't worth worrying about.
Well, maybe a bunch of our world has turned that way, but not all of us are assclowns trying to steal from the taxpaying base. We (our group) have roughly 3,000 acres. There is a piece of state land inside ours that is, in fact, landlocked. We have been trying to buy that 500 or so for about five years now. We don't feel it's right to try to lock people out of public ground, but they (public) have to cross a minimum of one 300 acre piece of ours to get to the public ground. We actually bought another 640 two years ago to trade for that landlocked ground, as the state can't sell it, but can trade for other acreage.
What some of these other asshats are pulling, while hiding behind "private property rights" is quite simply bullshit.
"Really David? The corner exists. If you need a surveyor to determine where it is, get it surveyed. There are no "constraints" due to GPS. If it's not accurate that is no excuse. That defense actually is not in your favor."
First of all, let me repeat, I am personally not necessarily in favour of corner jumping, although most of my posts have been in defense of that position. Is it so rare a person has enough bandwidth to argue a contrary position for fun or to entertain two opposing views simultaneously?
What that article does do is pretty much isolate this to civil trespass and hunters should worry a lot less that a game warden will cite them.
Now in regard to the gps issue the fence crossing may not actually be at four corners but all in public land. It would be up to the rancher to provide surveying information if the gps and esp. more than one gps showed the actual boundaries were not where the fence crossing is. Same as if you are cited for hunting on private property when the gps shows you are just outside it. I made this point earlier those fence positions may or may not be accurate. A bunch of cowboys probably put them up following terrain that made it easiest or a survey marker from a mile away a quarter of a century or longer ago.
Just to add, the fun would really begin in court if the gps readings varied at different times as a result of which satellites were being used by the gps...and/or which make/model of gps...
And all of this hoopla because a few inches of airspace were violated for a few seconds? Only in the USA! No wait! It's entirely likely the North Koreans would shoot someone standing outside their border fence but ho waved their hand across it for a few seconds!
"Fences, especially those built decades ago, are only an approximation of where the property line is or was thought to be."
I'm right. No I'm right. No I know more than you. No I do.....
Not picking a side, but if the corner location is inaccurate and you cross there, then you almost certainly trespasses either while doing so or in transit.
Bullhound - "asshats"? Really? I'm just going by current law. I don't agree with it but it is what it is. If you don't like the law, then lobby to change it. Folks in Montana tried but couldn't get it through the legislature. This needs to be changed at the federal level, then survive (another) USSC challenge.
I don't like it either but it is a prosecutable offense wherever they decide to prosecute it. I'm thing the shoe would be on the other foot of you'd bought your dream mountain property and then discovered a bunch of asshats were breaking breaking the current law and marching/riding ATVs across your property into the NF behind. Or would you put up a big sign saying "Public Welcome"?
"Marching/riding ATV's across your property" is a totally different issue than corner crossing. Those activities are clearly trespassing and should be prosecuted as such.
A hunter or fisherman quietly stepping over a corner pin and continuing his way on public land should not diminish the enjoyment of your property unless you feel entitled to exclusive use of the public land.
Lou, We are talking about corners, not about someone ramrodding through your property. And yes, I stand by what I said. Trying to block off public ground simply because you own ground next to it is an "Asshat" thing to do. Maybe I should call it something else, but I think you, and others, get the point. NoWiser, you are correct. That is what I am referring to.
Even the best GPS units that are available are only accurate to three meters and three meters doesn't get you close enough to say you're actually jumping from corner to corner," Wharff said in an interview.
Fake news, try less than 4 cm (less than 2 inches for American folk) in real time.
" you almost certainly trespasses either while doing so or in transit." Not certainly at all. If the fence is just a bit off toward the public square you wouldn't set foot on private land or violate airspace in crossing the fence.
Cazador, actually what matters is not the gps coordinates but the land survey lines. At least I think so. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. However a gps indication would probably make a significant impression to most law officials.
Additionally, even the survey lines are not necessary accurate or conclusive:
"Although you may be able to find old maps created for tax purposes, in many cases the land you own might have never been surveyed. Additionally, if you do find a previous survey from decades ago, there’s no guarantee it was accurate at the time, nor will it necessarily help solve your issue or assist you in identifying the actual property lines on the ground.
Land surveying is an art, not an exact science. It is possible for two surveyors to obtain different results. Also, because the measurements are made based on the evidence found, two surveyors working at different points in time may not have the same evidence available." -- https://www.pointtopointsurvey.com/2016/07/7-land-surveying-myths-misconceptions-debunked/
So the bottom line it would seem (haha) is anyone with a good lawyer is going to get the case tossed.
I'm sure a good lawyer could get you off, after all they would have to prove who's land you were trespassing on and at the corner there are two private landowners unless one guy owns both private parcels. It would be all but impossible for them to prove who's airspace you violated. They could speculate but that isn't evidence.
But the bottom line is who really wants to spend all that money and time in court? It wouldn't be worth it to me.
The complexity is delightful, a real rabbit hole. Ultimately the solution is elsewhere other than in accuracy or lack therof, inches of airspace, vanishingly small corner points, etc.
I do feel as a private landowner I might argue differently...I have imagination and it doesn't take that much imagination to imagine how pized off one might be when the issues that Lou and others have pointed out occur.
Landowner incentives to make enclosed public lands accessible is perhaps going to be the best solution.
"The truth is often found at the intersection of two independent lies..."
From: 0hndycp 07-May-18 If it’s like most situations now, an outfitter has private land leased and uses that as a means to block public access to federal land. This allows outfitter to dramatically increase the land he has to himself and his clients! "
Twice I have received permission to cross private land to hunt public or other private land. Once an island that gave me he same quality goose hunt on a 7 acre island between to goose clubs. the other was access through an outfitters big game outfit to hunt a 30 " mu lie on state and county land Both situations the ranchers didnt care much for he lease's.
I think that is crap. I am a retired helicopter pilotfrom Arizona. The law states you cannot hunt for x number of hours,,24 after having flown over or inintininto ahunt area. There is nt anylaw i am aware ofthat states where you can or cannot land a helicopter except in a wilderness area. Period. I can fly ahelicopter anywhere but wilderness and land anytime for any reason as long as I can land without damaging property, building etc if there is an engine failure.
I don't believe you can land your copter anywhere you want (except wilderness) for any reason. If you land on my farm just because you want to you will be charged with trespassing. If you land on an interstate highway or a public park just for grins you be arrested. BLM and FS lands and any other government owned land certainly can have regulations in force that affect whether you can land a copter there legally. Obviously if you were having an emergency there would be some accommodation but that is different.
In Montana you can land on public roads per pilot discretion...
“I don’t believe you can” “Arrested”...please
The problem here is when you start off your reply with this statement it tells me you know nothing on the subject and are just going with your gut instinct. Everyone is a sea lawyer when the ship leaves the dock...
Grab a FAR/AIM and read the regulations.
This landlocked, checkerboard land is owned by me and all of the rest of us citizens of the United States. As an owner, I believe that the land in these old checkerboards is a complete and utter waste of assets. It is sitting there producing nothing, a vestige of the old railroad giveaways from previous times. I do not know the laws of the states involved, but, maybe, if possible under state laws and rights, our federal government should obtain eminent domain non-exclusive easements for public travel through all of those corners, build a direct road diagonally from corner to corner, and SELL ALL OF THAT LAND, reserving a 40' easement for travel to the general public. Any land necessary for the health and safety of wildlife, such as migration routes, enclaves, etc., can be retained and managed as required. The proceeds would be a very, very large amount of money. The contiguous owners, if they want to continue to use the land exclusively, can pay for it. What am I missing? I assume there will be some protests from the ones doing it. ' And, I don't think a good talking point is that they paid for the perceived ability to keep us from using our own land.
I like that idea bowsiteguy. Im for it. Anybody else.
I've been in the helo and landed in quite a few places....parking lots, schools, cliffs, logging roads, beaches, private property, etc......granted some of this was for govt ops. Heck...logging helos land in the bush often for logging ops. Sightseeing helos land on the glaciers in AK. Float planes land on bush lakes. Illegal???? If you are licensed and permitted you could land just about anywhere you want within reason and safety. There were places we could not enter at will such as restricted areas, wild life sanctuaries, etc. Those required a special flt clearance.
Bowsiteguy, that field has already been plowed. The government tried to do that across corners to provide access to Seminoe reservoir from the back side. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against it, citing recreation as not a compelling reason. By numerous variations of standing law, private property rights trump public recreation whether we like it or not. Eminent Domain would NEVER be used to take private property to provide recreational access.
And what would be the point of selling the checkerboard public land sections? (BTW, they do that all the time now, and around where I live the USFS actually bought a bunch of private sections to eliminate the checkerboarding.) Wouldn't that negate the purpose of building and maintaining hundreds of miles of new roads? Even if the Federal Govt illegally tried to seize the private property of hundreds of landowners, who would build and maintain these roads? USFS can't maintain the roads they have now.
C'mon Jaq. Stop throwing facts into this thread that deflate the pipe dreams of others. :)
I like most, have issues with land locked federal land. BUT! It’s scary to think about allowing and even wishing the Feds to take private land for others hunting rights. It’s bad enough when they do it for utilities and roads. Most of these people we would take the land from are not rich evil land barons. They are usually scratching out an existence from the land. Many of them only wish they had the luxury of time and money to chase animals with a stick and string. Many also have been there for a hundred or more years. It’s seems like an easy thing to fix but it’s not.
"C'mon Jaq. Stop throwing facts into this thread that deflate the pipe dreams of others. :)." Well, he's throwing in facts, but they don't apply. Let me write it again: his facts don't apply. Maybe one -- that roads need maintenance -- and that will have to be provided for. This is one of the details that are solvable. Maybe a fund created from the bonanza of property sales, maybe associations -- whatever. This is important: The Seminoe Reservoir case dealt with easements of necessity, not eminent domain. Ironically, the Court's decision was based on the finding that an easement of necessity was not available "BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT RETAINED THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN." (emphasis added) "Eminent Domain would NEVER be used to take private property to provide recreational access," he says. First of all, of course, we're not talking about recreational use. Secondly, who says? Never say never; it's all up to Congress. It's all political. It's all politics. He's right; presently, it won't happen, but things and politics are changing. When someone takes the time to appraise the value of all of the landlocked checkerboard land going to waste, and let's voters know what that number is, who knows? At the political turnover point, when all of the politics have changed, and it is clear that the costs of eminent domain are a drop in the bucket, it could, and IMHO, should change to end this ridiculous waste of assets. Parenthetically, the political and cultural changes, including the rise in the demand for recreational use and multiple use of public lands, could, in the future, fuel a successful demand that our government spend some assets to snip off some of those corners for the benefit of public use.
You guys are making my head hurt. I’d rather see them sell it to a surrounding land owner at a reasonable price and take the money and buy property that can be used for elk/deer migration. Now that’s a pipe dream!
One thing I don’t have an issue with...why shouldn’t the government gain access to public lands? Right now the land owners are using it as their own private play grounds. Use eminent domain and “take” 40 feet to use as access, hell, give them back the same amount from the public property that’s now being accessed. Now that’s a pipe dream!
A voluntary arrangement between the private landowner and the government to open access to landlocked land would be the best situation. It could be incentivized by prohibiting trespass by anyone, including adjacent landowners, unless there is a reasonable public access easement open to the public.
I'm sure Ocasio-Cortez could tell us a way we could pay for this.
I think there may be some money left from the Pentagon after they pay for free medicare!
What makes anyone think the landlocked sections "are going to waste"? Most of them generate grazing fees, which is no different than any of the rest of the National Forest. The federal government doesnt make a nickel off all of us hunters who want in there.
And of course you're talking about recreational access. Don't pretend it isn't. The only people clamoring to open up these landlocked checkerboards are hunters. What else would it be for? Logging? Good luck with that. Mining? Drilling?
Bowsiteguy, you seem to be going in circles. On one hand you talk about opening the squares up for access. On the other hand, you talk about "funds created from the bonanza of property sales". Which is it? USFS and BLM are already selling off landlocked chunks.
What is the compelling reason for the USFS to engage in such a gigantic, expensive battle that would involve hundreds of lawsuits all the way to the USSC, at tremendous cost to taxpayers, just so hunters can access some landlocked sections? What does the USFS have to gain from this?
Bowsiteguy, you might want to re-read the Leo Sheep Company ruling. The illegal road was built specifically to provide access to the public for hunting and fishing. It was not for "necessity", only convenience, since there were other legal routes to reach Seminoe.
This is what Justice Warren Berger wrote: "We are unwilling to accept the Government's invitation to upset settled expectations to accommodate some ill-defined power to construct public thoroughfares through private property without compensation".
So yes, eminent domain is a possibility in taking land from hundreds of landowners. But this isn't a matter of crossing at a corner. As Ziek pointed out, many of these parcels, probably most (all of the ones I know) would require building a road through significant portions of private property to reach the corners. These aren't golf courses. Expensive, difficult projects for an agency short of cash now. And for what compelling reason?
If there was a compelling reason, the money would be found.
North Dakota has an easement that allows travel down any section line (+- 33 ft If I remember correctly). Travel can be vehicle, horse, foot. Eminent domain could be used for exactly that sort of easement.
Dogman, quit making things so simple and obvious!
Sounds like a great idea! But why would the USFS go to all the expense, legal spiderwebs, and certain pushback from congresspersons in each district? How would the USFS benefit from this, and where would the millions of $$$ come from? Again, what is the compelling reason?
What makes it trespassing? Can you use one of the ladders that form a bridge and go across like that? Nothing would touch private ground...bare with me What makes a helicopter legal an not the bridge ladder?
So, what about a snorkel boom lift? Those can extend 50+ feet and drop you off on the other side of the property line.
Actually...the North Dakota example above isn't a bad idea. Easements and setbacks are common along property lines.
Jaq, I don’t understand. Obviously the compelling reason is millions of dollars of public assets are tied up and inaccessible. What’s compelling to me, might not be compelling to you, it’s in the eye of the beholder. If I owned some land next to some land locked federal land I might agree with you though! Haha
I didn't worry about it. Chief Game warden told me it wasn't illegal, then I asked about "airspace" and he laughed. I know a cpl guys trying to get a deputy to write a ticket in WY and can't get it done.
Aspen. Negatively incentivizing? I like it. But, a lot of this is buffering private property. Jaquomo. I am not going to sit here and type obvious rebuttal and explanations for you. You apparently have an in on one of these blocking situations, and you want to keep it. Fine. A lot of us want it to end. The internet has changed the ball game. For a long time, money and cronyism have bought influence and political access, and there was no other way to get things done. Now there is.
I have no "in", no landlocked access, no dog in the hunt. I'm simply a pragmatist and a realist, thats all. There are some hunting honeyholes here where I live in Checkerboardville that I'd love to access. But in my county they do cite for criminal trespass.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no reason for the understaffed and underfunded USFS to undertake such a dramatic effort. They already negotiate and purchase easements where significant blocs are/were locked up, like on the mountain behind my house.
UCSD, doesnt matter to the USFS that that checkerboarded sections are inaccessible to the public. They get no additional revenue if these chunks are open to hunting. They'll still get grazing money (which is still way underpriced.. ) whether its open to hunting or not. The general outdoor public isnt demanding these chunks get opened up. They like trails and big parks, not sections of deadfall, rock, timber and meadows. Thats why we dont have all the Front Range recreationalists - way too many, as you know - marching on the Capitol to demand the state and feds DO SOMETHING to get them access.
I agree Jaq, no money for it and no reason to fight for it. It's a whole lot easier to trade parcels and eliminate the land locked pieces from inventory.
The problem with the "trading" is that all it takes is for a LO to slip a bureaucrat a few grand and he gets to trade crap for gems. I know in my gut it happens.
And if the land held true hunting value, then that land is better off landlocked in the LO's eyes as he can just use all of it and lease it out for big money. There are a lot of outfitters and a lot of LOs who make a boat load of money from hunters who basically pay the "outfitter" to open a gate for which he paid for the key. Why trade grazing rights on this section for grazing right on that section, when you get grazing rights on a section anyways and a 5 digit yearly income for handing a guy a key to a gate?
Ike, my BLM elk honeyhole was traded for some seasonal marsh land adjacent to a waterfowl nesting area. Overnight it went from a great, overlooked public land elk spot, to a high dollar outfitted ranch. As you mention, this was sort of a BLM-landowner sweetheart deal, wink-wink.
Didn’t they just pass something that requires disclosure and public comment on deals like that?? Value-for-Value swaps should be OK, but it wasn’t just Lou who got screwed on the deal he just described....
I will push back just a little, though, Jaq; Why the assumption that roads would be necessary?
I wouldn’t expect a landowner to like the idea of an easement AT ALL, of course, but if the easements extended to access only for foot & hoof traffic.... Motorized Vehicles can do a lot of damage when used irresponsibly, and that would clearly harm the landowners.
The problem would be that the already-accessible acreage would immediately turn into a parking lot/campground in the corner(s) nearest an easement.
And that could get pretty disruptive.
GF, that would certainly be possible, and a simpler solution would be to just legalize corner-crossing. Montana already tried and failed with that effort. The bigger question is why? Why would a state legislature and governor pass a bill that would inflame many vocal constituents (and campaign contributors) just to please some hunters on internet forums? The general recreating public doesn't care because they already have millions of acres of readily accessible land on which to recreate to their hearts content, both developed with trails and toilets, to roadless and semi-roadless.
If the easement you suggest was open to foot and horse travel I'd be ok with that, because Colorado law allows e-assist bikes to go wherever foot and horseback can go (except in designated wilderness areas). So me and Rambo would be on our way in to hunt!
Is there an obscure reg/code, etc that states all govt property lines have a buffer or easement of "x" amount of feet from the property line? That would be something if a person could find one.
Not sure why that link appeared. I didn't insert it. Thank goodness it is "family friendly", LOL!
I guess the Eminent Domain argument would be that it is necessary in order to control the deer/Elk population because the private owners can’t get it done short of using depredation permits and leaving valuable game animals to rot.
Kinda stupid to pay somebody for damage to a haystack when it was caused by animals which the landowner knowingly and deliberately protected by providing sanctuary during the hunting seasons.
And just as stupid to pay him for lost livestock when predators follow the prey base onto private land and then turn to livestock when they prove so much easier to catch.
I guess I would like to THINK that the laws in this country would prevent somebody from having it both ways and profiting from a public resource.
Besides, to hear the ranchers tell it, they don’t make nearly enough money to be able to make any meaningful campaign contributions....
Wow.Lotsa interesting views here.No way I’m going to read all this but must comment on one statement I did come across while skimming through the thread.The idea one must ‘prove’’ how he got somewhere or be charged with criminal trespass is total BS.The Government entity has the burden to prove things,not any citizen.He can remain silent and has no burden to speak or ‘prove’ anything.
This stuff always amazes me. I think largely because I grew up in a region where several states still have laws that make unposted private land 100% legal to hunt/fish etc (though recently more towns are creating bylaws requiring written permission). Here in MA, the law's have been - for basically ever - that posting land, crazy as this sounds, opens you up to lawsuit risk to a greater degree than unposted land. Every time I note this, people from basically the entire rest of the country lose their collective crap and freak. But it's just the way it's been here, and it works/is not abused and lets folks enjoy the outside quite well. It's our "normal".
So when I see this stuff, I just think: "Really, it's that bad if there is a foot/hoof access space along the edge of a parcel of private to reach public, or to hop a corner?" It feels like that's about something beyond protecting one's land investment/ownership. But as noted above, my experience makes me have a heavy bias on this.
I think "we" should have access to public land. I think it improves peoples appreciation for it, and is a long term value. So those ideas noted above - being able to "hop" across a corner or walk/ride a horse say along a 5-10 foot edge. I'm not seeing how that creates an issue for a land owner, especially if said access was accompanied by some sort of legal protection for the land owner.
Leftee, you're right. I should have added, "or stay in that landlocked section until you die", because there is no way to get back to where your truck is parked unless you sprout wings and fly, get extracted by helicopter, or trespass across a corner. So you don't have to prove how you got in there, only how you got out.
Sheriff's deputy in court: "Mr. Johnson is pressing trespassing charges because Mr. Leftee entered and exited a section of land for which there is no legal acccess. He trespassed across Johnson's corner" DA: "Mr. Leftee, how did you access that section? Is this game camera photo of you?"
Mr. Leftee waves pocket Constitution and refuses to answer. Judge finds him guilty of criminal trespass and assesses a fine.
As I said above, I dont agree with this and wish I could hop corners, but in my county and many other places, the sheriff will cite if the property owner signs the complaint.
This has been an entertaining thread and I would like to provide some clarification/insight. My specific credentials that qualify me to give insight – USMC helicopter pilot for 17 years(12 active duty, 5 as a reservist), helicopter pilot for the federal government for 18 years, federal law enforcement officer for 18 years. I am not providing this information to toot my horn or to imply that my information is beyond reproach, but rather to provide specific details of my education instead of “a retired pilot” or “was a county officer” for a period of time. I will clearly annotate when I state an opinion. To address the question of can a civilian helicopter pilot land a helicopter on Federal land to drop off a passenger. Helicopters can be operated any altitude that “should a power failure occur, there is not undue hazard to persons or property on the surface,” and, that the operation is conducted without hazard to property or persons on the surface. The FARs do not address the landing of a helicopter on personal property. Once the aircraft is on the ground, it becomes a state law trespassing infraction as the aircraft is no longer in the federal airspace system. This would allow a pilot to fly over personal property, and hover over that property in order to drop a person off so long as he did not land. I’ll come back to this later.
According to the AIM (7-4-6) there are federal regulations that prohibit airdrops by parachute or other means of persons, cargo or other objects from aircraft on lands administered by the U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks and Forest Service Areas. As far as flying over designated wildlife areas – it is “requested” that pilots avoid flying lower that 2000 agl (above ground level) over those areas. So, pilots can legally fly over those areas (as it is a “should” not a “shall), but are forbidden from dropping any objects therein. Opinion – As far as the Federal Aviation Regulations – the regulations that cover these types of operations, Part 91, general aviation regulations, don’t have much of a bite when aviators fail to follow them, typically license revocation for a short period of time. In addition to this, from the enforcement standpoint – who would have the proof that one landed there a dropped someone off? Is there someone out there at the exact moment when a pilot landed and dropped someone off? Did he take a picture where his face, through a window and helmet visor, was able to be identified as that exact person? Not likely. Opinion – back to my point regarding being dropped off on private property - This is a little academic as the cost would be quite prohibitive for the average person. Some basic numbers for a R-44 – 400 lb payload (after gas for a 2 hour flight and pilot), $500 per hour. 2 hours to drop off you and your gear, $1000. If you harvest a bull, 4 hours to get you and the meat out, $2000. Another 2 hours to get the head out, $1000. So IF the helicopter is based within 100 miles of your destination, you are looking at $4000 minimum. This example is for a Robinson 44, a no frills fairly weak helicopter that has a back seat for gear, not a turbine helicopter that can go to 10000 feet and take off vertically with the above loads. For that type of operation, expect to be paying 1000-1300 per hour. To comment on the discussion of a citizen being required to prove how he came to be in a legal area and partaking in a legal activity: A LEO can conduct a consensual encounter with a citizen and ask questions at any time. The citizen can terminate the encounter at any time, although most are unaware of this. So, a LEO can come up on a hunter and ask how he arrived at his location. At this point the hunter should establish if he is free to leave or if he is being detained. If he is being detained and he is being questioned, the LEO is required to read the suspects Miranda warnings. If he is not free to leave and the officer asks INCRIMINATING questions, any answers to those questions will be thrown out by the judge. LEOs are required to prove a citizen has broken the law, citizens are not required to prove they followed the law. An officer in the field - county officer, game warden etc. can cite a citizen for almost anything they choose, but only the judge can deliver punishment. One would hope that officers of that character don’t last long on the job. An officer charges a citizen with a crime, the DA/AUSU accepts or declines the case, and the judge renders judgement. Obviously a minor infraction does not have a DA involved, the LEO would be responsible in that case for proving guilt. Opinion – I don’t want to be in the position of having to go to court to defend myself. As a non-resident in any western state, I sure wouldn’t want to have to drive 12 hours to appear before a judge. Case in point – I was cited in Colorado for having a fire in camp. I was meeting my hunting partner that afternoon and there was already a fire in camp that was smoldering when I arrived. The game warden showed up and informed us there was a fire ban (although it had been raining for 3 days). He looked at our licenses and went on his way, 3 weeks later a citation showed up in the mail. So what does one do, pay $50 for the citation or take 2 days off work and drive to Colorado? I paid.
The helicopter expense isn’t that relevant...you could be a pilot yourself, etc.
Re: citation by mail, I have had citations dismissed thru mail appeal to the judge...
Redfisher...sounds like you may have been CBP too??
Another thought for anyone to consider with overflying private property is the noise hazard to the private property...ie, livestock.
My friend has a chunk of land outside of Cortez Colorado, the Mesa Verda area....He has a ton of land..,.. unlike so many jackwads in the west,he has his corners posted,,,,, NO Trespassing except for Hunters,,,,, He use to include Trappers, but since Colorado is such a anti trapping state, he took that off.....
Most guys are not on his land... they have to cut a corner, to get to public land.,,,, the few hundred yards they are on his property, he could care less,,,, he has plenty to hunt
He says respect the land and do not litter,,,,, he has zero problems.... most of the west is being purchased by jackwads......
Jaq,sorry total BS.Phony judge and prosecutor,both of which wouldn’t do as you described or that would be sanctioned if they did.Now when you change the assumed facts and add a game camera pic,that may be different based on WHO testified as to foundational issues on set up etc.The defendant again would not have to answer that question either. Not saying it doesn’t happen as u described,just that it shouldn’t and wouldn’t if handled properly. The likely problem(s)are the defendant did talk and/or(understandably)didn’t fight it properly due to costs.Sad situation. If fought properly,this crap would end because after awhile the ‘State’ would feel the financial crunch and stop it and let any Rancher pursue a case civilly if desired.
Leftee- if you ever want to hunt elk in CO, PM me and I'll turn you on to an awesome spot where you only have to cross one corner to get behind a big ranch and have killer hunting with no competition. Then you can tell us how you worked the system after you're cited for criminal trespass.
Those of us who live in checkerboard land where they prosecute would love to have a way to get around the peril. My girlfriend is an attorney and she hasn't been able to figure out a way around it under current law, so we would all appreciate the lesson so we can hunt these places.
Stepping over the actual corner doesn't constitute "knowingly entering or remaining on the property" in Wyoming. Is there case law in Colorado that defines that ?
I don't know, Bob. I know the Wyo AG issued a written opinion that it (corner hopping) is prosecutable under the general trespassing statutes, but left it up to local jurisdictions. As you know, some counties don't bother with it. That's presumably the status in CO as well. I do know that in the two counties I hunt down here, they prosecute at the county court level, and some landowners with problem corners like the one I described above have cameras hidden at the corners. I've talked with the sheriff and the senior game warden for the GMU about this numerous times because I'd like to access that point I described. Others try, and are caught. They have to park on the county road to go through the first square, so it's pretty easy to find them when they return, or track them down with their plate and cite them at home.
Since efforts to legalize corner-hopping have failed at the state legislature level, it will probably take federal action to make it happen, then fight the lawsuits, and considering how disfunctional our federal gubmint is, that is very unlikely to happen.
Redfisher is correct as far as National Forest is concerned. BLM a private (not for hire) pilot can land on essentially any two track, same as you could drive any vehicle if you had the access. Just that a plane/helicopter has it's access from the air and not the ground. For hire, my understanding the pilot needs a commercial use permit for fed land. I know folks who play with their planes all over the west on BLM land. Interesting also, much of the designated wilderness in ID is legally accessible by aircraft as well.
Redfisher. Solid info. 100% agree with everything you wrote. Semper Fi
The wyoming AG only stated it "may" be a trespass violation. In that particular case, the hunter was cited under a game regulation. Because there was no intent to hunt the private, the case was thrown out. Ever since, the dept does not cite for crossing at a corner if the hunter goes from public to public with no intent to hunt the private.
For you sea lawyers......what's the difference between a flying a helo over a corner and a person stepping over a corner? Legally....it seems a helo can take off from public and land in public. Under the same rational....a person could "take-off" from public and "land" in public. Both traveled thru the "airspace" over private/public land to accomplish the transition....from a logical perspective...is there any difference? At least that is one way I would sea lawyer that. The other option is to see what the regs were on buffers to public land lines.
Jaq you need a good lawyer,not meant as an oxymoron.In 30 yrs of doing it I met a few. That lawyer needs clients that keep their mouths shut. Checkboards with more than one landowner preferred.
A corner crossing could be an airspace only issue of a few inches for a few seconds...if you don’t set foot on private land...Plus, the corner in question would have to be verified down to the inch for even the airspace location to be precisely known. Very possible for the corner to actually be entirely on public land if the fencing is just a few inches off!
Question for Redfisher,
Are "PART 103-ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES" considered aircraft in regards to the landing regulations? The regs seems to go out of their way to call them "vehicles" rather than ultralight "aircraft".
This country has a history of civil disobedience making significant changes.Keeping the meaning of those two words in mind,this might be a situation where I personally could condone it.If groups of the new ‘public hunters’ were to join and just go cross corners in mass,what would happen?And happen quickly? I think I know. Get a few hikers,birders etc to join,and get change even faster.
One thing about civil disobedience that some people seem to forget is that you have to be willing to do the time, so to speak. You can’t just claim that you were committing an act of civil disobedience and expect a get out of jail free card. That’s a matter of principle and JMO, but I’ll bet that most here would agree with me so long as I could come up with an example using anyone whose politics they find disagreeable.
And a second piece of civil disobedience that gets overlooked is that it really only seems to apply to situations where there is clear intent to protest an injustice... and while BLM land IS public, anyone leasing it DOES have some rights.
So it may not be quite so simple as we’d like to think. Not that this pleases me, but reality never has been 100% to my liking.
“Interesting also, much of the designated wilderness in ID is legally accessible by aircraft as well.”
Is that unique to Idaho?
Leftee, you are absolutely right about civil disobedience resulting in positive change. The difference here, as I mentioned earlier, is that there is nothing special or unique about most of these chunks that would incent non-hunters to join in. No compelling reason to risk anything to go bushwhacking through deadfall to prove a point.
Around my immediate area of Checkerboardville in N. CO there are a few million acres of accessible National Forest, five different wilderness areas, a National Park, many large State Wildlife Areas, and hundreds of thousands of acres of dedicated open space with cool natural features and hike-bike-horse trails.
The only people who seem to care about getting into the landlocked chunks or jumping corners are hunters, and only the hunters interested in a few specific parcels. If laws couldn't get passed in WY and MT, the chances are pretty slim of something happening.
I'm still hung up on the buffer idea....which might be the simplest legal solution. What if the govt put a say 10' - 20' buffer circle on all corners?
Yes Jaq i agree. Not enuf incentive. As to ‘cost’ of any civil disobedience,of course there is. There is no free lunch,nor should there be. However,burden a prosecutor and a single court system with 50 cases and prosecutorial discretion may change. Burden a State with 1000 cases and a lot would change. Court calenders,budget constraints etc simply wouldn't/couldn’t allow it to continue. Especially when landowners have other remedies. Will it happen? Doubt it. As a group hunters are conservative,law abiding,responsible people with jobs,families etc.The incentive/injustice here isn’t enuf to change that. (Sorry but typing from stand and hands are freezing so will quit)
JL, I'm sure the House of Representatives will be ready to tackle that constitutional dilemma right after they finish impeaching Trump, passing immigration reform, undoing the tax reform, passing gun control, and agreeing on infrastructure funding. Then they'll get right on the burning issue of corner hopping!
Jaq....if there already is a CFR or some other regulatory vehicle in place that would allow it, it may just be a matter of finding it and then applying it.
I suspect any legal challenges would go thru the court system and not Congress. Don't fear about the HOR. If all they do is investigate, we may see it turn back over in 2020. All 435 House seats will be up for reelection then.
"What if the govt put a say 10' - 20' buffer circle on all corners?" = Take
My understanding on some of the the ID wilderness is that the air strips were there and actively being used before the wilderness designation so they grandfathered them in. Some buddies flew in for a DIY bear hunt and were a short hike from a lodge with a 5 star chef who they had dinner with.
The USFS discovered a survey error from a very old survey and notified a dozen of my neighbors that their properties, and some homes, were actually on NF. They offered to let my neighbors buy their property and homes back at today's market prices. It got really ugly but the USFS wouldn't budge, even though it involved maybe 50 total acres on a 1.5 million acre National Forest. For real.
The courts ruled in favor of USFS, so our U.S. Rep got involved, and it actually took congressional action to restore their property.
Just got this in the inbox. Parts of this are directly related to the thread topic. It came out today.
As Montana elk populations grow, FWP proposes increasing cow hunt, reducing bull hunt
BRETT FRENCH firstname.lastname@example.org 3 hrs ago
With elk populations continuing to grow in five Montana hunting districts “egregiously over-objective,” Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is proposing to increase hunter access to antlerless tags and reduce some bull elk hunting opportunities.
The proposals will go to the Fish and Wildlife Commission when it meets Monday in Helena. The meeting starts at 8 a.m. and can be watched at regional headquarters or listened to online.
The proposals target hunting districts near the Big and Little Snowy mountains and along the eastern side of the Crazy and Little Belt mountains, which are meeting only 43 to 68 percent of their antlerless elk harvest objectives. In Hunting Districts 411, 511 and 530 around the Snowies the elk population is estimated at about 7,300. That figure is 918 percent over the population objective of 800 elk.
“If we meet the harvest criteria it only stops the population from growing,” said John Vore, FWP’s Game Management Bureau chief. “Even if we doubled the harvest it would take a couple of years to lower the population.”
Republican lawmakers narrowly passed legislation in 2003 requiring FWP to manage to population objectives that are based on landowner tolerance, not what the land can biologically support. But that has proven complicated in areas with large swaths of private land where public hunters are not allowed access, or public access is limited. Even where access is allowed, elk will migrate off any property where they are being hunted and hide out on nearby land where hunting isn’t allowed.
“Access is definitely a big issue in many of these places,” Vore said. “We could have elk season all year around and allow hunters to shoot 10 elk,” but without access to the animals even that would fail.
As proof that elk are a difficult animal to kill, consider that in 2016 only 12 percent of Montana’s roughly 113,500 elk hunters were successful.
In response to growing elk populations, two years ago FWP instituted an elk shoulder season that allows hunting in the fall before the archery season, in between the archery and rifle season and after the rifle season in 43 hunting districts where elk were over objective.
The extended season has demonstrated some success. “In the last two years 32 percent of adult cow (elk) harvest totaling 590 cows in these five HDs was during shoulder seasons,” according to FWP. More B tags
Under the proposals, FWP would make an unlimited number of antlerless elk B licenses available for purchase over the counter in the hunting districts, rather than through a drawing that has limited the number of licenses. The tags would be good in the archery or rifle seasons. Hunters could buy only one of the B licenses. Either-sex permits offered in the districts would remain.
For example, in HD 580 along the east side of the Crazy Mountains, only 1,500 antlerless elk B licenses were offered through a drawing this past season. Under the new proposal those would be unlimited and available without applying through a drawing.
Offering the licenses over the counter also allows any nonresident elk hunter to purchase a B tag. When the elk licenses are limited and offered through a drawing, nonresidents are allowed only 10 percent of the total number of licenses offered.
Whether that change would result in an increase in the number of nonresident elk B tags sold is unknown, Vore said. But last year when FWP offered doe tags in Carbon County to assess the spread of chronic wasting disease, they sold out in minutes and people drove from as far away as Washington in the middle of the winter to hunt.
“When we offer opportunity, certainly a lot of hunters look forward to that,” Vore said.
Limited elk B tags in the five hunting districts did sell out this season, he added, demonstrating that there may be an appetite for more of the cow elk tags.
The changes would also limit the bull elk harvest in four of the hunting districts. For example, in 580 a general elk A license last year allowed a hunter to shoot any elk — bull or cow. Under the new proposal that would be limited to any elk only the first two weeks of the rifle season. The final three weeks would be cow elk hunting only.
In the Little Belts’ HD 540, the change would mean an elk A license — which had been good for a cow or bull with brow tines the entire rifle season (no spike bulls) — would allow only spikes to be shot in the first two weeks of the season. The final three weeks would be antlerless only.
In HDs 511 and 530, on the south side of the Snowies, an elk A tag would change from allowing spike or cow harvest the entire rifle season to a spike harvest only in the first two weeks of the season. The final three weeks would be cow elk hunting only.
Only HD 411 hunters would see additional opportunity. In that district an elk A tag had been good for cow elk-only the entire archery and rifle season. Under the proposed change spike bulls or cows could be killed in the first two weeks of the archery or rifle season with an A tag. +3 Elk hunters
Elk hunters could have more opportunity to kill a cow elk next season if the Fish and Wildlife Commission approves a proposed increase in antlerless tags. BRETT FRENCH, Billings Gazette Reasoning
The reason FWP wants to focus hunters on cow elk is that they are the ones responsible for growing herds. Shooting a bull elk reduces the population by one. Shooting a cow elk, which can get pregnant, reduces the herd by two or more if the same cow gets pregnant more than once in its 10-year lifespan.
But reducing the bull harvest can hit the pocketbook of landowners who outfit their land. Bull hunts are more attractive to hunters and therefore worth more money.
“There’s some good stuff in there, I think, to help us get rid of the problem,” said Chuck Rein, a hunting outfitter and landowner along the east side of the Crazy Mountains in HD 580. “But taking the bull elk harvest out of the scenario is a pretty clear affront to the landowners.”
Rein said any notion that landowners might respond to the loss of revenue by “swinging the gates open” to allow more public access is unfounded. “That’s not how landowners are wired,” he said.
He also said that many public hunters aren’t interested in packing a cow elk out on their back, even if the opportunity were available to hunt private land.
As proof that bull elk hunting is more popular, FWP’s statistics show that last year in HD 580 hunters killed 541 bull elk when a harvest of 369 bulls was needed to meet FWP objectives. The cow elk harvest, on the other hand, was 383 animals, while 554 were needed to meet objectives. For the entire season the harvest fell more than 580 elk short of FWP requirements, even though 167 cow elk were taken during the shoulder season, which allows pre- and post-season hunting.
The elk population in HD 580 is more than 4,800 elk. The objective is 975, or more than 3,800 elk over objective.
FWP, some commissioners at odds over Montana's extended elk season Change
Some argue that the elk objectives should be altered to make the numbers more in line with the amount of elk that exist on the landscape today. Vore said that would just push a resolution of the problem farther down the road as elk would continue to multiply.
“The longer we don’t reach our objective the harder the problem is to fix,” he said.
Added into the complexity of the situation is the unpredictability of the weather. Snow, especially heavy snow, can push elk out of the mountains and into areas where they are easier for hunters to kill. But heavy snow also limits hunter movement by vehicle as well as on foot. Likewise, mild weather can limit hunter success.
Rein suggested FWP needs to be patient.
“It took us 30 years to get into this mess, we’re not going to get out of it in three years.”
There's no money in cow hunts for landowners.
David A - Thx for the info on mail in appeal, I was unaware. Re the relevance of helicopter expense - normally the pilot expense is a small percentage of the total bill.
JL - Correct, still am.
Aspen Ghost - FAA defines "Aircraft" as any device meant for flight, in the air. So, sounds like that would be included. RF
I guess that rules out my pogostick. LOL
Here's a photo of my girlfriend modeling my new set of wings so I can take flight from public lands and fly to other public lands across the corner. I'm only going to need to go airborne for a few feet so I'm sure I can pull it off. I just need to make sure I don't fly too high, too close to the sun, so that the wax holding the feathers on the wings melts.
Steve H-- Nice! It's not every day we get an Icarus reference on bowsite!
Oh, and if things don't work out with your girlfriend LMK- she seems nice.
Scoot, since you asked I'll introduce you to my girlfriend's sister. She's a bit touched, I've got to warn you, think she's a bat.
With the eye patch, she must fly in circles alot. :-)
Just prolly not Steve's circles...... =D
"What if the govt put a say 10' - 20' buffer circle on all corners?"
It infringes on private property rights which are more important than the privilege to hunt. Once even a small right is taken the rest are not far to fallow.
I wonder if the majority of corner fencings are accurately positioned...highly unlikely for ranch hands to be vey concerned when the fences went up....
You cannot fly into just anywhere in the ID wildernesses. There are established air strips in much of the Frank Church and Selway-Bitteroot wildernesses that have been established and are technically outside (even though they're inside) the wilderness. You can land on the strips, but not 100 yards to either side of them. If you look at the actual wilderness maps, there's wilderness boundary lines around the airstrips.
"It infringes on private property rights which are more important than the privilege to hunt. Once even a small right is taken the rest are not far to fallow. "
If the local govt/township/city/county imposes property setbacks, is that an infringement on property rights?
So if most of these corners aren’t accurately placed down to inches, what type of case would an air violation of inches be?
“ what type of case would a puropted air violation of inches be?”
"If the local govt/township/city/county imposes property setbacks, is that an infringement on property rights?"
To attempt to do so AFTER the property rights are established is called a "take or takings"--legally . Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
"To attempt to do so AFTER the property rights are established is called a "take or takings"--legally . Sorry, it doesn't work that way."
Interesting thought on a "taking". I never heard of that....good stuff to know. A setback does not "take" property. The landowner retains the property. It appears zoning codes are a legal taking exceptions to ensure a property owner does not infringe on the neighboring property owner. The SCOTUS has already upheld state rulings on this. Below is from Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking
"There are numerous instances where the US Supreme Court has found that state courts have reasonably concluded that "the health, safety, morals, or general welfare" would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land. And in this context the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld land-use regulations that adversely affected recognized real property interests.
Zoning laws are the classic example; see Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915) (prohibition of brickyard operations within certain neighborhoods); Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (prohibition of industrial use); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 608 (1927) (requirement that portions of parcels be left unbuilt); Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909) (height restriction), which have been viewed as permissible governmental action even when prohibiting the most beneficial use of the property. "
With that said.....if the landowners are restricting access to the adjoining property of another at the property corners of taxpayer or Fed govt real property...why can't a setback be established to permit passage? Who is looking out for the interest of the taxpayers or govt?
Public airspace normally begins over 500 feet in urban areas/structures and 360 feet over rural areas/structures. Below that airspace is private. Exceptions are made for emergencies and approaches at airports, etc.
Ike, my dad was asked to help out an ID outfitter in the 70's when their plane was under repairs for a few weeks. He flew clients and supplies in and out and we got to elk hunt. Landing the 185 on what was basically a big gravel bar on the Selway River in the wilderness area. Wild times for a wide eyed kid...... some good stories. There are actually quite a few airstrips in ID grandfathered in. I don't know of any other wilderness areas that are like that but there may be. Don't know.
"So if most of these corners aren’t accurately placed down to inches, what type of case would an air violation of inches be? "
"...why can't a setback be established to permit passage? Who is looking out for the interest of the taxpayers or govt?"
Because that's not a setback its an easement or a Right of Way.
And, a setback doesn't confer the right of passage like an easement or ROW may do so just because there is a setback doesn't mean Joe-Q-Public can travel thru the setback.
I encourage you to Google "Takings" or "Regulatory Takings".
Most of the discussion here would not involve a ‘taking’.Corner crossing is not a taking.There are a number of ‘legal’ ways to allow access across corners,easements by necessity for instance.And,IMO access to these parcels will eventually be created.
My neighbor's arm swung over on to my airspace several times each week this summer every time he made the turn while mowing his front yard. Even worse, another neighbor's dog crapped on my lawn and she came a full 5 steps on to my property to bag it it up.
It's not just rural landowners who are victims of blatant and harmful trespassing.
TD - "Public airspace normally begins over 500 feet in urban areas/structures and 360 feet over rural areas/structures. Below that airspace is private." This is incorrect according to the FAA, who owns all the airspace. Class G airspace is that uncontrolled airspace(this does not in any way attempt to imply that it is not owned by the FAA, only that the FAA does not provide weather reporting or traffic separation) that is "generally" from the surface to 1200 feet(where class E exists) or 700 feet if so marked on VFR sectional charts, designated as a transition area for airports that have an instrument approach. My supporting documentation - AIM 3-3-1, figure 3-2-1. If you have other documentation that supports your claim, I would appreciate if you would provide that. RF
Leftee is correct in that easements of necessity could be filed for and granted legally. Those are generally granted by the court on a case-by-case basis when there is no other way to access a specific landlocked property.
So the questions would be, who actually "owns" these parcels that the USFS manages in the public trust? Who would document, define, and challenge each of the hundreds, maybe thousands of contested parcels? Could it be done on a blanket scale across multiple states?
Why would the federal government go to the time and expense to survey, document, file, and then fight this all the way to the SCOTUS? What does the USFS or BLM have to gain from such a complicated, expensive and time-consuming effort? Can that chick in the BHA "Public Land Owner" t-shirt prove a compelling NEED to access a parcel, vs. just "want to", in court?
Leftee may be right that this will happen someday. But until there is a serious compelling reason to undertake such a massive legal and logistical project, likely not going to happen in our lifetimes. I don't believe a state legislature the legal authority to force the granting of an easement of necessity to access land the state doesnt own or manage.
"Most of the discussion here would not involve a ‘taking’.Corner crossing is not a taking." Please don't suggest I said that corner crossings would be a takings. That part of the discussion is clearly addressing retro easements/ROWs on private parcels where none currently exist.
Do you not think that adding an EASEMENT or ROW on a private parcel would be a takings?
If a person's private property value decreases due to losing exclusive access to land locked public. That may be a "taking".
I'm no lawyer.
Unfortunately, access for recreational use wasnt the issue it is today when this stuff was originally set up.
Most easements would not be a taking. ROWs possibly. Likely if taken by eminent domain.
ED is its own immoral beast, legalizing a takings. My family lost three prime farms in Nebraska in the 40s to ED so I probably have a bias.
"Congress has provided authority for the FAA to purchase this non-public airspace near airports to accommodate planes taking off and landing. The "navigable airspace" in which the public has a right of transit without affecting a landowner's property rights has been set at the height of 500 ft in urban or suburban areas, and 360 feet above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas. The exact altitude(s) at which the airspace over private land becomes "public" airspace, or where the upward bounds of national sovereignty extends is often debated, but the Supreme Court rulings and space treaties are clear. A landowner's domain extends up to at least 365 feet above the ground. see Causby v US (1946)"
FAA 91-119 uses what i"ve been told is more of a "recommended safe altitude" kind of thing. A thousand feet over "congested" areas and 500 feet over "other than congested" areas.
Airspace class isn't going to come into play much flying into a BLM section. The private property airspace however may. That is the airspace you would be trespassing over on a corner crossing. Technically the corner points of private "touch" and you would be moving through their "private airspace". At least that is my understanding of their rulings.
" I encourage you to Google "Takings" or "Regulatory Takings". "
Steve...I did, that is how I learned a bit about the "takings" and the exclusions to them the SCOTUS ruled on. That would seem to be a legal basis for consideration which parlays to easements and ROW's on property borders. I think there would be such avenues to pursue if the funding was there to litigate it.
"I think there would be such avenues to pursue if the funding was there to litigate it."
Yeah right, owners of half of the private lands in the country are going to tolerate that notion.
Virtually impossible to get a criminal trespass ticket at this corner.
TD - I don't put a great deal of weight on Wikipedia for the current statutes. That case was heard in 1942. Additionally, I saw no reference to 500' or 360' in the reference that Wikipedia provided. See FAR 91.119, for airplanes, minimum safe altitudes over other than congested areas, 500 feet. For helicopters - less than 500 feet is permitted so long as they do not pose a hazard to persons or property on the surface. The case cited refers to a land owner that had a chicken farm, and his chickens freaked out and died due to FREQUENT low flights(the farm was in close proximity to the runway on the departure/approach path) by large military aircraft. In that case, it was found that although the citizen did not own the airspace, there was damages done to his property. The FAA clearly establishes this - congested areas - 1000 feet for airplanes. There weren't helicopters in 1942, the regulations changed since then. A landowner would be hard pressed to sue for damages for a helicopter hovering(not landing) over his property over a remote area where no damage could be proven.
Actually, the FAA regulations allow powered parachutes and weight shift planes aka trikes to fly with no minimums in sparsely populated areas and there is no reference to private property. When I had my trike I often flew very low over agricultural and ranch land —-legally.
Cuz they figure that way yur not gonna fall as far..... =D
See if this works.... never tried an imbed from facebook..... just saw it a day or two ago..... heheheheh