8 ms·

The Wyoming corner crossing case

101 points by wlkr 4y ago

boltzmann-brain 4y ago
> The legality of stepping from one public parcel to another across a shared corner is still a legal gray area
QuarterRoy 4y ago
- cardamomo 4y ago
  From the guidelines: > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
This is fascinating :) > North and South Dakota define section lines as a public right of way, which seems to allow corner crossing or at least access to landlocked public lands. Here in Illinois, my rear property line is a section line, and a neighbor down the street has the intersection of that section line with another; interestingly it is not on his property line (this is land that was sold by the federal government in 40 acre square quarters of a quarter, but farmers had subdivided and consolidated things over the years). But anyway, in his yard is a stone survey marker showing the intersection point, and it has "ROW" engraved on it. It lends credence to this concept being common historically.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it's laughable that it's made it this far. Someone can't block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.
- svnpenn 4y ago
  completely agree. the answer here is so stupidly obvious, that it shouldn't even need a trial. even if some public land was fully blocked in by private land, the public still has every right to access that land. If that means moving through private land to get to it, so be it. If the owner dont like it, they can sell and buy some other land that is less public-adjacent.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel? Private owners are generally expected to understand and establish easements. I'm generally in favor of something like a right to roam, though I expect (many) people would ignore the part where they should be respectful of the land they are crossing.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel? Shouldn't anyone buying a landlocked parcel get an easement?
    - molotovh 4y ago
      Moreover, why doesn't the concept of an easement apply to these corners?
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      What happens if anyone buys a surrounded parcel? Generally there is a way to get an easement across private land to access other land. Maybe the legislature could help, and force an automatic easement process across any land where the owner doesn't want people crossing without permission.
  - elihu 4y ago
    One solution would be to exercise eminent domain. The state or federal government claims a couple square feet of land wherever one of these corner crossings exist so that there's enough space for a footpath. For each of these, the landowner is sent a check for the fair market value of the land, which in most cases is probably about a dollar or so. Problem solved. If there's too much paperwork involved in eminent-domaining every one of these, you could have a system where members of the public can request corner access, and some agency can invoke eminent domain in priority order based on the number of requests for each corner.
sc68cal 4y ago
This is basically the same issue as public access to California beaches, where wealthy landowners attempt to block public access to the commons and turn it into private property. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-wealthy-public-beaches-private-security https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...
- boltzmann-brain 4y ago
  Kind of, except: - with beaches, you get to the beach, and that's it. Unless you bring a boat. With corner crossing, suddenly thousands of acres of vast land are available to you. - with corner crossing, you're talking about specifically corners - which is a cool little... "corner case", if you will. Just something that resonates with me technologically. - there's some considerations of "floating above ground" and "how low above ground are you allowed to fly". Like, could you float two meters above someone's private ground legally, without criminal trespassing? That has important answers with regards to stuff like drones etc coming onto your private land. And what about something like, say, ziplines? Could you have a horizon zero dawn style zipline in a corner that's just high enough for you to get to the other side of the corner?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    > how low above ground are you allowed to fly 1000 ft in populated areas, 500 ft in rural areas
    - mbrameld 4y ago
      That doesn't apply to helicopters, though.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - RRWagner 4y ago
      500 ft in rural areas that still have buildings and structures of some sort, but FAA regs for private pilots state,"may fly at less than 500 feet when over “sparsely populated areas,” as long as the aircraft is not operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vehicle, or structure." Many parts of Wyoming would be considered to be "sparsely populated".
PostOnce 4y ago
In some countries, it's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
- ledauphin 4y ago
  I feel profound sadness that there is no legal equivalent in the US. What a beautiful, humane concept.
  - prawn 4y ago
    The endless signs about trespassing in wild parts of the USA are pretty grim. I understand why they do it, but it feels so adversarial and ugly.
    - elihu 4y ago
      As I went walking I saw a sign there, And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." But on the other side it didn't say nothing. That side was made for you and me. https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm
      - GolfPopper 4y ago
        For some reason, that stanza gets left out of the all modern performances I've heard.
        gweinberg 4y ago
        That's because it's not in the Guthrie version, only the Mojo Nixon version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNjVogUV1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNjVogUV1E
        GolfPopper 4y ago
        This version, apparently by Guthrie, has it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s
saboot 4y ago
Id like to know why specifically the officers changed their mind the third time. I can easily take a guess for the reason though.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  The article doesn't say that the ticketing officer was in the other two groups of officers. So, it's not clear that your assumption is correct. First, the local game warden arrived with *two sheriff's deputies.* ... The next day, a *sheriff’s deputy* arrived... ... Finally, *a third law enforcement officer* arrived with direct orders to ticket the hunters, not for hunting without permission, but for criminal trespass.
- rhplus 4y ago
  In Wyoming, it’s not criminal trespass unless you have been notified by the property owner or law enforcement. So perhaps one of the first two encounters included such notification. https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSOTopicSummaryTrespass.pdf https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSO...
failbuffer 4y ago
De minimis non curat lex - the law does not deal in trifles. Unless a multi-millionaire pharmaceutical businessman wants to make life difficult for someone, apparently. It's silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  The law absolutely deals in trifles. Go brazenly steal a stick of gum from Walmart, and see what happens.
  - erehweb 4y ago
    From https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/de-minimis-non-curat-lex https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/de-minimis-non-c... "The de minimis rule is seldom relevant in criminal law (so, for, example, the offence of theft is made out whether the property taken is worth one penny or £1 million) but it is not wholly irrelevant. For example, a shopkeeper who hangs a rack of newspapers on the outer wall of his shop abutting the highway may be acquitted of obstruction of the highway on the basis of de minimis non curat lex."
  - sbierwagen 4y ago
    In SF, nothing.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    Friend of mine got hauled in front of a judge for eating a malt ball in a grocery store. Judge fined him 10 cents.
  - Eleison23 4y ago
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Given that this comes down to badly-worded laws that allow for a lot of interpretation, essentially would double the land-owner's exclusively-usable land if corner-cutting was forbidden, and there is apparently no precedence set, this is not a de-minimis-case.
entrylevel 4y ago
I'm really surprised that this hasn't been settled. It seems unjust that you can surround a piece of public land--or someone else's land--with your private land and deny access to it. I remember Disney was successfully sued to allow access for the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek resort because Disney owned all the land that would provide access to it and didn't want to allow it.
- olliej 4y ago
  You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc The public is reaping what it has sowed. This is only possible because for decades a huge chunk of the public has treated the pursuit of safety or "the children" or any other "you're evil if you criticize anyone who purports to stand for this" type of subject as something that is more important than all other interests.
- toast0 4y ago
  Access rules vary by state. I know in Washington, there's the concept of a 'way of necessity', where if you own (or are entitled to beneficial use of) land that is inaccessible, you are allowed to cross the land of others (the statute language says you're allowed to condemn and take the land, but I think you might only get an easement?). This is separate from what Washington calls an implied easement when a parcel was split, and access continues to one of the resulting parcels was through the other and this is allowed to continue although there was no written easement. Looks like Wyoming has something similar [1], although I don't know if "any person whose land has no outlet to..." could include federal lands, as the federal government isn't always considered a person. Anyway, that seems to require the owner to initiate a process to obtain access, and I'm guessing whichever federal agency controls this land isn't that interested in access. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2010/Title24/chapter9.html https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2010/Title24/chapter9.h...
davidw 4y ago
That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/...
- Thorrez 4y ago
  I wonder if some/most/all of that checkerboard is caused by the lumber harvesters deciding to harvest only half the checkerboard squares at one time, then wait some number of years before harvesting the other half. This wouldn't significantly reduce the harvest over a long enough time horizon, and it would ensure there's always some forest available for animals to live in. The checkerboard looks too obvious to me to be just due to ownership.
  - russell_h 4y ago
    No, the actual ownership structure does the same thing - every other square in those checkerboards is BLM land.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      Wow, I'm surprised. Here's a map[1]. Am I right that the reason is for making sure wildlife has some available area to live? https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6f0da4c7931440a8a80bfe20eddd7550 https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htm...
    - refurb 4y ago
      They did that along the Canadian Pacific Railway as well when they acquired land to connect the coasts. Basically the railway owned every other section and private individuals could purchase those in between.
exhilaration 4y ago
Previously discussed (last week): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467
- dang 4y ago
  Thanks! Macroexpanded: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 - Nov 2022 (181 comments)
rippercushions 4y ago
> The federal government regulates airspace 500 feet and above the land surface, leaving the states to decide what happens below. Wyoming statute 10-4-302 states that ownership of the space above private land is vested in the owners below, subject to the right of flight. So if you have a FAA-approved helicopter/giant drone/equivalent and comply with their regulations, you can legally hop from one checkerboard to another, as long as each hop goes above 500 feet? (Assuming that national park regulations allow you to land on the ground with your aircraft, which is sadly probably not the case.)
- chrisshroba 4y ago
  Yes, and this is one of the more clear cut yeses!
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  If you keep reading, you can go as low as you want as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the land. 500 ft is just the thresh-hold for where the FAA will take an interest.
fastball 4y ago
Why are these public land parcels in a checkerboard anyway? Doesn't it make way more sense to have continuous pieces of land for administration / etc?
- c3534l 4y ago
  Its covered extensively in the article.
twelve40 4y ago
That pharma guy is an unbelievable douchebag. Investing his own, his crew's and the cops time (they have nothing better to do?) into ... what exactly?
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Effectively doubling his exclusive use of land ... it's something worth investing some money to.
IncRnd 4y ago
Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this. What does the law say with regard to corner crossing? There is no specific state or federal laws regarding corner crossings. Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access. [1] https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Prog...
mattlondon 4y ago
Why don't the land owners just put up a fence if they are so worried? Doesn't need to go the whole length, just like 1 or 2 meters at the corners, then there is no argument about if someone's shoulders went on your land or not.
chrisbrandow 4y ago
Idiotic. Profoundly stupid.
josh_fyi 4y ago
Why don't private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner? I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  In this case there was a metal “No Trespassing” sign at the corner. The hunters used a stepladder to climb over it, such that both ends of the ladder were on public land. The prosecution claims that they still violated the private landowners’ air rights in the process.
  - josh_fyi 4y ago
    Certainly. If instead they had 20' tall poles covered in spikes (with a gap of 2" in between so as not to impinge on public property) that would not be a question. I am glad that that is not happening!
pintxo 4y ago
Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing? As obviously (on flat land without obstacles) one can step from one square into the diagonal square without setting foot on either the adjacent squares.

101 points by wlkr 4y ago

boltzmann-brain 4y ago

> The legality of stepping from one public parcel to another across a shared corner is still a legal gray area

QuarterRoy 4y ago

cardamomo 4y ago
From the guidelines: > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

This is fascinating :) > North and South Dakota define section lines as a public right of way, which seems to allow corner crossing or at least access to landlocked public lands. Here in Illinois, my rear property line is a section line, and a neighbor down the street has the intersection of that section line with another; interestingly it is not on his property line (this is land that was sold by the federal government in 40 acre square quarters of a quarter, but farmers had subdivided and consolidated things over the years). But anyway, in his yard is a stone survey marker showing the intersection point, and it has "ROW" engraved on it. It lends credence to this concept being common historically.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it's laughable that it's made it this far. Someone can't block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.

svnpenn 4y ago
completely agree. the answer here is so stupidly obvious, that it shouldn't even need a trial. even if some public land was fully blocked in by private land, the public still has every right to access that land. If that means moving through private land to get to it, so be it. If the owner dont like it, they can sell and buy some other land that is less public-adjacent.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel? Private owners are generally expected to understand and establish easements. I'm generally in favor of something like a right to roam, though I expect (many) people would ignore the part where they should be respectful of the land they are crossing.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel? Shouldn't anyone buying a landlocked parcel get an easement?
  - molotovh 4y ago
    Moreover, why doesn't the concept of an easement apply to these corners?
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    What happens if anyone buys a surrounded parcel? Generally there is a way to get an easement across private land to access other land. Maybe the legislature could help, and force an automatic easement process across any land where the owner doesn't want people crossing without permission.
- elihu 4y ago
  One solution would be to exercise eminent domain. The state or federal government claims a couple square feet of land wherever one of these corner crossings exist so that there's enough space for a footpath. For each of these, the landowner is sent a check for the fair market value of the land, which in most cases is probably about a dollar or so. Problem solved. If there's too much paperwork involved in eminent-domaining every one of these, you could have a system where members of the public can request corner access, and some agency can invoke eminent domain in priority order based on the number of requests for each corner.

sc68cal 4y ago

This is basically the same issue as public access to California beaches, where wealthy landowners attempt to block public access to the commons and turn it into private property. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-wealthy-public-beaches-private-security https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...

boltzmann-brain 4y ago
Kind of, except: - with beaches, you get to the beach, and that's it. Unless you bring a boat. With corner crossing, suddenly thousands of acres of vast land are available to you. - with corner crossing, you're talking about specifically corners - which is a cool little... "corner case", if you will. Just something that resonates with me technologically. - there's some considerations of "floating above ground" and "how low above ground are you allowed to fly". Like, could you float two meters above someone's private ground legally, without criminal trespassing? That has important answers with regards to stuff like drones etc coming onto your private land. And what about something like, say, ziplines? Could you have a horizon zero dawn style zipline in a corner that's just high enough for you to get to the other side of the corner?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  > how low above ground are you allowed to fly 1000 ft in populated areas, 500 ft in rural areas
  - mbrameld 4y ago
    That doesn't apply to helicopters, though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - RRWagner 4y ago
    500 ft in rural areas that still have buildings and structures of some sort, but FAA regs for private pilots state,"may fly at less than 500 feet when over “sparsely populated areas,” as long as the aircraft is not operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vehicle, or structure." Many parts of Wyoming would be considered to be "sparsely populated".

PostOnce 4y ago

In some countries, it's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

ledauphin 4y ago
I feel profound sadness that there is no legal equivalent in the US. What a beautiful, humane concept.
- prawn 4y ago
  The endless signs about trespassing in wild parts of the USA are pretty grim. I understand why they do it, but it feels so adversarial and ugly.
  - elihu 4y ago
    As I went walking I saw a sign there, And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." But on the other side it didn't say nothing. That side was made for you and me. https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm
    - GolfPopper 4y ago
      For some reason, that stanza gets left out of the all modern performances I've heard.
      - gweinberg 4y ago
        That's because it's not in the Guthrie version, only the Mojo Nixon version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNjVogUV1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNjVogUV1E
        GolfPopper 4y ago
        This version, apparently by Guthrie, has it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s

saboot 4y ago

Id like to know why specifically the officers changed their mind the third time. I can easily take a guess for the reason though.

IncRnd 4y ago
The article doesn't say that the ticketing officer was in the other two groups of officers. So, it's not clear that your assumption is correct. First, the local game warden arrived with *two sheriff's deputies.* ... The next day, a *sheriff’s deputy* arrived... ... Finally, *a third law enforcement officer* arrived with direct orders to ticket the hunters, not for hunting without permission, but for criminal trespass.
rhplus 4y ago
In Wyoming, it’s not criminal trespass unless you have been notified by the property owner or law enforcement. So perhaps one of the first two encounters included such notification. https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSOTopicSummaryTrespass.pdf https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSO...

failbuffer 4y ago

De minimis non curat lex - the law does not deal in trifles. Unless a multi-millionaire pharmaceutical businessman wants to make life difficult for someone, apparently. It's silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.

LadyCailin 4y ago
The law absolutely deals in trifles. Go brazenly steal a stick of gum from Walmart, and see what happens.
- erehweb 4y ago
  From https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/de-minimis-non-curat-lex https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/de-minimis-non-c... "The de minimis rule is seldom relevant in criminal law (so, for, example, the offence of theft is made out whether the property taken is worth one penny or £1 million) but it is not wholly irrelevant. For example, a shopkeeper who hangs a rack of newspapers on the outer wall of his shop abutting the highway may be acquitted of obstruction of the highway on the basis of de minimis non curat lex."
- sbierwagen 4y ago
  In SF, nothing.
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  Friend of mine got hauled in front of a judge for eating a malt ball in a grocery store. Judge fined him 10 cents.
- Eleison23 4y ago
DocTomoe 4y ago
Given that this comes down to badly-worded laws that allow for a lot of interpretation, essentially would double the land-owner's exclusively-usable land if corner-cutting was forbidden, and there is apparently no precedence set, this is not a de-minimis-case.

entrylevel 4y ago

I'm really surprised that this hasn't been settled. It seems unjust that you can surround a piece of public land--or someone else's land--with your private land and deny access to it. I remember Disney was successfully sued to allow access for the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek resort because Disney owned all the land that would provide access to it and didn't want to allow it.

olliej 4y ago
You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >You can even purchase the land, while promising to maintain a public right of access, and then close the right of access indefinitely "for safety", etc The public is reaping what it has sowed. This is only possible because for decades a huge chunk of the public has treated the pursuit of safety or "the children" or any other "you're evil if you criticize anyone who purports to stand for this" type of subject as something that is more important than all other interests.
toast0 4y ago
Access rules vary by state. I know in Washington, there's the concept of a 'way of necessity', where if you own (or are entitled to beneficial use of) land that is inaccessible, you are allowed to cross the land of others (the statute language says you're allowed to condemn and take the land, but I think you might only get an easement?). This is separate from what Washington calls an implied easement when a parcel was split, and access continues to one of the resulting parcels was through the other and this is allowed to continue although there was no written easement. Looks like Wyoming has something similar [1], although I don't know if "any person whose land has no outlet to..." could include federal lands, as the federal government isn't always considered a person. Anyway, that seems to require the owner to initiate a process to obtain access, and I'm guessing whichever federal agency controls this land isn't that interested in access. [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2010/Title24/chapter9.html https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/2010/Title24/chapter9.h...

davidw 4y ago

That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/...

Thorrez 4y ago
I wonder if some/most/all of that checkerboard is caused by the lumber harvesters deciding to harvest only half the checkerboard squares at one time, then wait some number of years before harvesting the other half. This wouldn't significantly reduce the harvest over a long enough time horizon, and it would ensure there's always some forest available for animals to live in. The checkerboard looks too obvious to me to be just due to ownership.
- russell_h 4y ago
  No, the actual ownership structure does the same thing - every other square in those checkerboards is BLM land.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    Wow, I'm surprised. Here's a map[1]. Am I right that the reason is for making sure wildlife has some available area to live? https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6f0da4c7931440a8a80bfe20eddd7550 https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htm...
  - refurb 4y ago
    They did that along the Canadian Pacific Railway as well when they acquired land to connect the coasts. Basically the railway owned every other section and private individuals could purchase those in between.

exhilaration 4y ago

Previously discussed (last week): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467

dang 4y ago
Thanks! Macroexpanded: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467 - Nov 2022 (181 comments)

rippercushions 4y ago

> The federal government regulates airspace 500 feet and above the land surface, leaving the states to decide what happens below. Wyoming statute 10-4-302 states that ownership of the space above private land is vested in the owners below, subject to the right of flight. So if you have a FAA-approved helicopter/giant drone/equivalent and comply with their regulations, you can legally hop from one checkerboard to another, as long as each hop goes above 500 feet? (Assuming that national park regulations allow you to land on the ground with your aircraft, which is sadly probably not the case.)

chrisshroba 4y ago
Yes, and this is one of the more clear cut yeses!
dghlsakjg 4y ago
If you keep reading, you can go as low as you want as long as it doesn't interfere with the use of the land. 500 ft is just the thresh-hold for where the FAA will take an interest.

fastball 4y ago

Why are these public land parcels in a checkerboard anyway? Doesn't it make way more sense to have continuous pieces of land for administration / etc?

c3534l 4y ago
Its covered extensively in the article.

twelve40 4y ago

That pharma guy is an unbelievable douchebag. Investing his own, his crew's and the cops time (they have nothing better to do?) into ... what exactly?

DocTomoe 4y ago
Effectively doubling his exclusive use of land ... it's something worth investing some money to.

IncRnd 4y ago

Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this. What does the law say with regard to corner crossing? There is no specific state or federal laws regarding corner crossings. Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access. [1] https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Prog...

mattlondon 4y ago

Why don't the land owners just put up a fence if they are so worried? Doesn't need to go the whole length, just like 1 or 2 meters at the corners, then there is no argument about if someone's shoulders went on your land or not.

chrisbrandow 4y ago

Idiotic. Profoundly stupid.

josh_fyi 4y ago

Why don't private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner? I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
In this case there was a metal “No Trespassing” sign at the corner. The hunters used a stepladder to climb over it, such that both ends of the ladder were on public land. The prosecution claims that they still violated the private landowners’ air rights in the process.
- josh_fyi 4y ago
  Certainly. If instead they had 20' tall poles covered in spikes (with a gap of 2" in between so as not to impinge on public property) that would not be a question. I am glad that that is not happening!

pintxo 4y ago

Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing? As obviously (on flat land without obstacles) one can step from one square into the diagonal square without setting foot on either the adjacent squares.