9 ms·

For those out of the loop just as I was: https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossing-report https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/c

by Eduard 3y ago

For those out of the loop just as I was: https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossing-report https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossi... > What they had done was place an A-frame ladder across an intersection of property boundaries, the location where four parcels of land meet at a point. They climbed up one side of the ladder from public land, and down the other side of the ladder, stepping kitty-corner onto a different parcel of public land. But in doing so, their bodies also crossed through the airspace of the other two parcels meeting at that point, which were private. Their trial, set for mid-April, will decide if they trespassed when they passed through that private airspace. This sounds so constructed, as if they wanted to provoke the precedent.

michaelhoffman 3y ago
How else are they supposed to cross from one corner to the other?
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  Just step across.
  - californical 3y ago
    Which is also illegal, btw, due to terrible us laws around public land
    - Eduard 3y ago
      Just build a ladder high enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
      - labster 3y ago
        I see you, and raise you Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_us...
      - mr_toad 3y ago
        Or parachute in. Not sure how you’d get out though.
        Lev1a 3y ago
        > Not sure how you’d get out though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery... , also known as "Skyhook" and pretty well demonstrated in "The Dark Knight".
        SirMaster 3y ago
        Simple, you could use a Paramotor. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dkRoX-Z6_A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dkRoX-Z6_A
    - LastTrain 3y ago
      Seems as though it is not illegal, at least according to this ruling?
    - labster 3y ago
      Not according to this ruling. But still possibly illegal in another federal circuit.
    - bhickey 3y ago
      Blocking access to public lands is a violation of the Inclosures Act of 1885. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter25&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/cha...
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    From reading the article, it appears that there was a fence (presumably intersecting sections of fence) that had to be overcome. Climbing the fences would be, nominally, stepping foot on those fenced properties. Using the ladder let them go over the corner boundary without actually having to step foot on the other two adjacent properties. | Public ---+--- Public | The fences belong to the private properties (if my understanding is correct) and the ladder lets them technically remain only, with regard to "setting foot", on the public properties.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      Clearly, the answer is to build a trebuchet to fling people across.
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        This is a brilliant "Age of Empires 2" reference.
    - lazide 3y ago
      The fence is also illegal.
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        I tried to Google about this, but I could not find anything. As one this page, there are no serious discussions about this matter. Can you share a reference?
        fragmede 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36158967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36158967
        sophacles 3y ago
        The actual court ruling is here: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-67_SWS_Order.pdf https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-... (kudos to whoever linked it up thread - couldn't find that comment again, but had it open in a tab).
- Eduard 3y ago
  By digging a tunnel, for instance
- hadlock 3y ago
  The ruling very intentionally says "on foot", which limits it to people walking across. Leaves the door open for future debate/interpretation about vehicular traffic. You might be able to design an offroad vehicle that can "step" across the boundary but by my (non-lawyer) reading this isn't covered by that.
- yaur 3y ago
  They are supposed to pay the rancher a trespass fee to be allowed access to the public land through their property or hire a guide that has a commercial agreement with rancher that includes access to the public lands.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Or, they could just... ask. Never a guarantee, but still an option until this issue can be more clearly defined from a legal standpoint. >“Last year, a couple of dads from Missoula and their sons showed up and asked me if they could hunt here. I told them to give me 15 minutes and I’d take them out with me. We got some really nice mule deer bucks for their sons, and they helped me work cattle the next day. We got some antelope for the dads the day after. So we had fun. One of them even bought beef from me this year.” https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossing-report https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossi...
    - thedailymail 3y ago
      It's a nice story but not great to think that we need to ask some oligarch's employee to be allowed to be escorted onto public land.
lolinder 3y ago
The plaintiff's complaint is so contrived that I almost wonder if it's all a setup to get this law overturned. No judge in their right mind would award anything close to the damages that they're asking for, and their argument in favor of the damages is the perfect illustration for how bad the law is: > Eshelman asserts that when the men corner-crossed — stepping from one piece of public land to another at a four-corner intersection with his ranch — they damaged him by up to $7.75 million. > That’s based on a 25% devaluation of the Elk Mountain Ranch, appraised at $31.1 million in 2017. > Rinehart would discount the ranch by 30% if corner crossing was declared legal, he said in an affidavit. His figure would raise alleged damages to a total of $9.39 million. So the argument essentially is "this law gives me de facto ownership of 25% more property than I actually own, and these guys trying to cross it somehow sets a precedent to set that land free". IANAL, but on the face of it that makes zero sense because two dudes breaking the law doesn't undo the law. However, if they're not actually trying to win, this is a pretty solid argument to make if you're trying to persuade a judge to legalize corner crossing. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a5197326-df94-53ce-82bd-e640acd1929d.html https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > However, if they're not actually trying to win, Is it illegal to take a case to court with the intention to lose yet set precident?
  - lazide 3y ago
    No, but that’s not what the rancher did. He tried to bully them using massive and inflated claimed damages, and it backfired.
  - User23 3y ago
    No. And this is a common trick the government has used. Have a friendly party bring a suit and then refuse to defend effectively to force the judge to rule against. That’s how prop. 187 got nuked.
petsfed 3y ago
Given that OnX makes its money off of facilitating access to recreational land, this report was surprisingly fair in describing land-owner concerns. I am pretty strongly for access to public land, but even I could appreciate the concerns re: bad apples being encouraged by this particular case. That is, if you already have an issue with people illegally accessing your land, then opening the door for more people to attempt to access public land by passing through some mathematically precise point in space does in fact invite people who aren't so careful to cross near the corner. I've seen enough braided trails and "no motorized vehicle" signs busted and mashed into tire tracks to believe that concern. And the reality is that all it takes to do irreparable harm is 1 bad actor, because they can do so much damage. All of that said, I think it's vitally important that western states do something to make it impossible to sue a trespasser for whatever loss of value you perceive when the public land you thought you locked up remains public. I can see suing a trespasser for the cost of reclaiming a social trail that they happened to get caught on. But I cannot see suing a trespasser for 25% of the value of a $31M real estate transaction, because it turned out that a bogus legal theory about "owning" land that's not actually in the deed is, in fact, bogus. If the landowner can make a compelling case that the previous owner, or the facilitating real estate agents, convinced the new owner of that bogus theory, then sure, sue them for the lost "value". But not the guys who went out of their way to avoid causing any real (in the legal sense) damage.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  If there's no evidence that the trespasser is substantially responsible for the trail, suing them is ridiculous too.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    Granted, but neither is it feasible to locate, much less pursue, every person who contributed to the social trail existing. I'd recommend you read OnX's report. They provide two examples of how the land owner is being harmed, although only one of them ("Bad Apples") seems valid. Ultimately, the concept of American exceptionalism (that is, the belief apparently held by every American that they, personally, justify an exception to the rules, but not anyone else) needs to die. That national myth is the greatest obstacle to a viable American implementation of e.g. the UK's freedom to roam. Until then, the land owner has (and should have) the right to protect their property. Years ago (ca 2009), I was training for the Laramie Enduro (now known as the Laramie Range Epic) mountain bike race up around Happy Jack, about 90 miles east of the ranch that kicked off this whole thread, when I encountered a no-motorized-trail sign, snapped off at its base, pressed into the mud in tire tracks left by car- or truck-sized tires. I've been skiing up in wilderness areas in the Snowy Range (that is, the range that Elk Mountain is the northern terminus of), and had to deal with junked up snow from snowmobiles. Now, damage to snow is sort of ephemeral, but damage to the underlying trail because there's insufficient snow coverage? In either of these cases, what recourse does the land owner/manager have? Do our courts really just "whelp, sucks to be you"? I really get how a few bad actors can really mess up an area. Because of that, I really do believe that if the law came down very publicly like the hammer of god on a few of those bad actors, the ones with the rotten luck to get caught, then people in general would be better stewards of the land. I think limiting damages to real damages (like trail mediation), and excluding legal fees, means that the would-be plaintiff, bringing a civil suit, should have to weigh whether or not the cost of a suit is worth winning the actual cost of removing a trail. If its 12 feet of trail near the corner, its not worth it. I recall an incident in Colorado, in 2000, where a radio station told its listeners about an unofficial gathering of off-roaders. Several hundred people showed up in trucks and jeeps and things, drove off road on federal land to get to private land, then tore up 7 acres of wetlands before leaving. A cursory googling of the KBPI mudfest incident didn't reveal the outcome, but at most a dozen people (out of ~200 vehicles) actually saw charges filed. If I was personally facing the remediation of 7 acres of wetlands, I'd be selling out every jackass who came with me and didn't get caught. That's the power of throwing the full cost on the unlucky one who got caught.
hadlock 3y ago
Weirdly I think this is not constructed, hunters are moderately heavy users of public lands and land rights are pretty important to that group. I believe they are entitled to enter public land and at the same time respect land right usage of private land owners, and the ladder is a discreet and harmless way to access public lands. The argument that they intersected the airspace of private land momentarily, with no damages, likely falls under accidental or unintentional violation. That said, the goal is to access additional public land. I struggle to see how the supreme court will fall on the side of private landowners and might even punitively add that vehicular access to private land might be allowed in the future. Right now it's only "on foot". This ruling has an enormous body of evidence and research behind it, this isn't a small issue for a large number of people; they just don't overlap much with the HN community very much.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago
  Weirdly I think this is not constructed, hunters are moderately heavy users of public lands and land rights are pretty important to that group Unless it's a hunting preserve (they do exist, plenty of buckhunting going on in Alabama) hunters are local and intensely aware of the power relationships. One really wishes to know: who is the guy with deep pockets that Eshelman upset and what are they beefing over, and how did he get the wholesome quartet of hunters to go along with him. The whole suit is about as organic as the Chatterley trial.
  - uxp 3y ago
    > One really wishes to know: who is the guy with deep pockets that Eshelman upset and what are they beefing over, and how did he get the wholesome quartet of hunters to go along with him. What are you talking about? Access to public lands has been an ongoing fight for decades with people from the entire political spectrum having opinions about the matter. Whether that be rock climbers trying to access routes, or people who fish trying to access streams, to people like this who are trying to access public hunting land. Assuming that everyone trying to access public lands is some poor pleb is in bad taste. Companies like Patagonia have long supported more liberal access to public lands with millions in donations, as well as organizations like the NRA with their advocacy and financial support.
jcrawfordor 3y ago
Both the method of "corner crossing" to access public land, and the use of a small ladder to get over a fence are common in the rural west. First, there is important historic context: "checkerboard" land ownership, in which alternating PLSS squares are owned by private owners and the federal government, is very common in the west. It is a result of a subsidy/incentive scheme awarded to railroads, in which the railroad was given ownership of 50% of the land within a certain range (up to 40 miles) of the new railroad. This land ownership incentivized the railroad to develop both the route and services along with it, and because the federal government retained ownership of the other 50% it was assumed that the government would benefit from the resulting increase in property values. The way it has actually turned out is less than ideal; in many cases the federal government's squares are public land to this day while the railroad parcels have been sold to ranchers and other land-intensive operations. This results in a situation where vast acreages of public land are only accessible by corner-crossing at the intersections of this checkerboard. Second, fences are put up mostly to keep cattle in, not people out. Where gate aren't installed, you could step over or through them, but with typical barbed wire construction that risks damaging the fence and pissing off a rancher. So on trails there are sometimes permanently fitted triangular ladders, and some people carry a ladder with them for this purpose. The dispute over access to public lands that are near, behind, or otherwise restricted by private land is a long-simmering one in the west that is reaching a head. In many cases public roads pass through privately held ranches. It has long been common in some areas for ranchers to put up "no trespassing" signs on these roads, which must be ignored after confirming the road is public. There have been various incidents of landowners locking gates on public roads, but this isn't so common since it's pretty clearly illegal and usually you can get the sheriff to do something about it. The problem seems to have been getting acute though, and instances of people being run off of public roads and public land adjacent to private holdings seem to be increasing. At the same time, land owners are getting more strategic about acquiring land that fully encircles public parcels so that they can get exclusive access to them. The root of this problem, as best I can tell, is the rise of the private game reserve. Many ranches have essentially been converted away from ranching operations (or at least they have been reduced to a secondary purpose) and now operate mainly as game reserves where people pay a good sum of money to hunt. This means that adjacent public lands are competition, both reducing the game inventory and providing alternative hunting destinations. So the owners of these game reserves have a great motivation to make public land around them inaccessible, and it's been difficult to organize against them since the BLM is not particularly interested in the problem. There are definitely ways in which this is a selected case to test the issue, but the issue is not at all restricted to this case. Hunting organizations are looking for clear precedent that private land owners cannot restrict access to public land, land owners are looking for clear precedent that they can. Since this case has a very "clean" set of facts it's pretty attractive to both sides, as it'll be hard for a court to resolve without taking a stance on the broader issue of the legality of corner crossing. In some areas there are fairly successful "open gate" programs that encourage ranchers to coordinate with state game authorities on providing access to public land that is in or behind their holdings. When the ranchers are mainly in the cattle business or farming, everyone can get along pretty well. There are disputes and there are ranchers that aggressively try to keep people out, but it's not so common. The big problem arises when the ranchers are primarily in the business of selling access to their land for hunting, in which case anyone hunting nearby who hasn't paid them becomes a problem in their eyes.
fritzo 3y ago
How do hunters haul a deer over that little ladder?
- cmilton 3y ago
  In pieces.
throwaway2037 3y ago
Stupid question warning: This is absolutely an HN "hacking the law" type of question. If an A-frame ladder can be used to cross an intersection of property boundaries, can the owners build a 30 meter high fence at the intersection to render the A-frame ladder obsolete? And if it were built, what kind of legal challenge could be used against it?
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36171631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36171631 In summary: It is illegal in spirit to block access to federal public lands.
tengbretson 3y ago
I've been in this exact situation elk hunting in Colorado. There was a section of public land with a herd of elk on it that my friend and I could have accessed via corner crossing in about 30 minutes that instead, due to very strategic parcels of land purchased by a rancher, blocked it off such that it was a multi-day hike to get there legally. If I had a lawyer friend and some free time I'd have probably tried a ladder too.
- Tepix 3y ago
  You were unsure if corner crossing was legal?
  - tengbretson 3y ago
    We were unfamiliar with the details of specific cases, but we had heard enough to know it wasn't something we wanted to try.
az226 3y ago
The airspace rights have already been settled. Remaining at issue is waypoint 6 and if trespass did occur. Judge set the max judgment at $100.

by Eduard 3y ago

michaelhoffman 3y ago

How else are they supposed to cross from one corner to the other?

idopmstuff 3y ago
Just step across.
- californical 3y ago
  Which is also illegal, btw, due to terrible us laws around public land
  - Eduard 3y ago
    Just build a ladder high enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
    - labster 3y ago
      I see you, and raise you Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_us...
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      Or parachute in. Not sure how you’d get out though.
      - Lev1a 3y ago
        > Not sure how you’d get out though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery... , also known as "Skyhook" and pretty well demonstrated in "The Dark Knight".
      - SirMaster 3y ago
        Simple, you could use a Paramotor. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dkRoX-Z6_A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6dkRoX-Z6_A
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    Seems as though it is not illegal, at least according to this ruling?
  - labster 3y ago
    Not according to this ruling. But still possibly illegal in another federal circuit.
  - bhickey 3y ago
    Blocking access to public lands is a violation of the Inclosures Act of 1885. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter25&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/cha...
- Jtsummers 3y ago
  From reading the article, it appears that there was a fence (presumably intersecting sections of fence) that had to be overcome. Climbing the fences would be, nominally, stepping foot on those fenced properties. Using the ladder let them go over the corner boundary without actually having to step foot on the other two adjacent properties. | Public ---+--- Public | The fences belong to the private properties (if my understanding is correct) and the ladder lets them technically remain only, with regard to "setting foot", on the public properties.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Clearly, the answer is to build a trebuchet to fling people across.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      This is a brilliant "Age of Empires 2" reference.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The fence is also illegal.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      I tried to Google about this, but I could not find anything. As one this page, there are no serious discussions about this matter. Can you share a reference?
      - fragmede 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36158967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36158967
      - sophacles 3y ago
        The actual court ruling is here: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-67_SWS_Order.pdf https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-... (kudos to whoever linked it up thread - couldn't find that comment again, but had it open in a tab).
Eduard 3y ago
By digging a tunnel, for instance
hadlock 3y ago
The ruling very intentionally says "on foot", which limits it to people walking across. Leaves the door open for future debate/interpretation about vehicular traffic. You might be able to design an offroad vehicle that can "step" across the boundary but by my (non-lawyer) reading this isn't covered by that.
yaur 3y ago
They are supposed to pay the rancher a trespass fee to be allowed access to the public land through their property or hire a guide that has a commercial agreement with rancher that includes access to the public lands.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Or, they could just... ask. Never a guarantee, but still an option until this issue can be more clearly defined from a legal standpoint. >“Last year, a couple of dads from Missoula and their sons showed up and asked me if they could hunt here. I told them to give me 15 minutes and I’d take them out with me. We got some really nice mule deer bucks for their sons, and they helped me work cattle the next day. We got some antelope for the dads the day after. So we had fun. One of them even bought beef from me this year.” https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossing-report https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossi...
  - thedailymail 3y ago
    It's a nice story but not great to think that we need to ask some oligarch's employee to be allowed to be escorted onto public land.

lolinder 3y ago

The plaintiff's complaint is so contrived that I almost wonder if it's all a setup to get this law overturned. No judge in their right mind would award anything close to the damages that they're asking for, and their argument in favor of the damages is the perfect illustration for how bad the law is: > Eshelman asserts that when the men corner-crossed — stepping from one piece of public land to another at a four-corner intersection with his ranch — they damaged him by up to $7.75 million. > That’s based on a 25% devaluation of the Elk Mountain Ranch, appraised at $31.1 million in 2017. > Rinehart would discount the ranch by 30% if corner crossing was declared legal, he said in an affidavit. His figure would raise alleged damages to a total of $9.39 million. So the argument essentially is "this law gives me de facto ownership of 25% more property than I actually own, and these guys trying to cross it somehow sets a precedent to set that land free". IANAL, but on the face of it that makes zero sense because two dudes breaking the law doesn't undo the law. However, if they're not actually trying to win, this is a pretty solid argument to make if you're trying to persuade a judge to legalize corner crossing. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a5197326-df94-53ce-82bd-e640acd1929d.html https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
londons_explore 3y ago
> However, if they're not actually trying to win, Is it illegal to take a case to court with the intention to lose yet set precident?
- lazide 3y ago
  No, but that’s not what the rancher did. He tried to bully them using massive and inflated claimed damages, and it backfired.
- User23 3y ago
  No. And this is a common trick the government has used. Have a friendly party bring a suit and then refuse to defend effectively to force the judge to rule against. That’s how prop. 187 got nuked.

petsfed 3y ago

Given that OnX makes its money off of facilitating access to recreational land, this report was surprisingly fair in describing land-owner concerns. I am pretty strongly for access to public land, but even I could appreciate the concerns re: bad apples being encouraged by this particular case. That is, if you already have an issue with people illegally accessing your land, then opening the door for more people to attempt to access public land by passing through some mathematically precise point in space does in fact invite people who aren't so careful to cross near the corner. I've seen enough braided trails and "no motorized vehicle" signs busted and mashed into tire tracks to believe that concern. And the reality is that all it takes to do irreparable harm is 1 bad actor, because they can do so much damage. All of that said, I think it's vitally important that western states do something to make it impossible to sue a trespasser for whatever loss of value you perceive when the public land you thought you locked up remains public. I can see suing a trespasser for the cost of reclaiming a social trail that they happened to get caught on. But I cannot see suing a trespasser for 25% of the value of a $31M real estate transaction, because it turned out that a bogus legal theory about "owning" land that's not actually in the deed is, in fact, bogus. If the landowner can make a compelling case that the previous owner, or the facilitating real estate agents, convinced the new owner of that bogus theory, then sure, sue them for the lost "value". But not the guys who went out of their way to avoid causing any real (in the legal sense) damage.

maxerickson 3y ago
If there's no evidence that the trespasser is substantially responsible for the trail, suing them is ridiculous too.
- petsfed 3y ago
  Granted, but neither is it feasible to locate, much less pursue, every person who contributed to the social trail existing. I'd recommend you read OnX's report. They provide two examples of how the land owner is being harmed, although only one of them ("Bad Apples") seems valid. Ultimately, the concept of American exceptionalism (that is, the belief apparently held by every American that they, personally, justify an exception to the rules, but not anyone else) needs to die. That national myth is the greatest obstacle to a viable American implementation of e.g. the UK's freedom to roam. Until then, the land owner has (and should have) the right to protect their property. Years ago (ca 2009), I was training for the Laramie Enduro (now known as the Laramie Range Epic) mountain bike race up around Happy Jack, about 90 miles east of the ranch that kicked off this whole thread, when I encountered a no-motorized-trail sign, snapped off at its base, pressed into the mud in tire tracks left by car- or truck-sized tires. I've been skiing up in wilderness areas in the Snowy Range (that is, the range that Elk Mountain is the northern terminus of), and had to deal with junked up snow from snowmobiles. Now, damage to snow is sort of ephemeral, but damage to the underlying trail because there's insufficient snow coverage? In either of these cases, what recourse does the land owner/manager have? Do our courts really just "whelp, sucks to be you"? I really get how a few bad actors can really mess up an area. Because of that, I really do believe that if the law came down very publicly like the hammer of god on a few of those bad actors, the ones with the rotten luck to get caught, then people in general would be better stewards of the land. I think limiting damages to real damages (like trail mediation), and excluding legal fees, means that the would-be plaintiff, bringing a civil suit, should have to weigh whether or not the cost of a suit is worth winning the actual cost of removing a trail. If its 12 feet of trail near the corner, its not worth it. I recall an incident in Colorado, in 2000, where a radio station told its listeners about an unofficial gathering of off-roaders. Several hundred people showed up in trucks and jeeps and things, drove off road on federal land to get to private land, then tore up 7 acres of wetlands before leaving. A cursory googling of the KBPI mudfest incident didn't reveal the outcome, but at most a dozen people (out of ~200 vehicles) actually saw charges filed. If I was personally facing the remediation of 7 acres of wetlands, I'd be selling out every jackass who came with me and didn't get caught. That's the power of throwing the full cost on the unlucky one who got caught.

hadlock 3y ago

Weirdly I think this is not constructed, hunters are moderately heavy users of public lands and land rights are pretty important to that group. I believe they are entitled to enter public land and at the same time respect land right usage of private land owners, and the ladder is a discreet and harmless way to access public lands. The argument that they intersected the airspace of private land momentarily, with no damages, likely falls under accidental or unintentional violation. That said, the goal is to access additional public land. I struggle to see how the supreme court will fall on the side of private landowners and might even punitively add that vehicular access to private land might be allowed in the future. Right now it's only "on foot". This ruling has an enormous body of evidence and research behind it, this isn't a small issue for a large number of people; they just don't overlap much with the HN community very much.

HarryHirsch 3y ago
Weirdly I think this is not constructed, hunters are moderately heavy users of public lands and land rights are pretty important to that group Unless it's a hunting preserve (they do exist, plenty of buckhunting going on in Alabama) hunters are local and intensely aware of the power relationships. One really wishes to know: who is the guy with deep pockets that Eshelman upset and what are they beefing over, and how did he get the wholesome quartet of hunters to go along with him. The whole suit is about as organic as the Chatterley trial.
- uxp 3y ago
  > One really wishes to know: who is the guy with deep pockets that Eshelman upset and what are they beefing over, and how did he get the wholesome quartet of hunters to go along with him. What are you talking about? Access to public lands has been an ongoing fight for decades with people from the entire political spectrum having opinions about the matter. Whether that be rock climbers trying to access routes, or people who fish trying to access streams, to people like this who are trying to access public hunting land. Assuming that everyone trying to access public lands is some poor pleb is in bad taste. Companies like Patagonia have long supported more liberal access to public lands with millions in donations, as well as organizations like the NRA with their advocacy and financial support.

jcrawfordor 3y ago

Both the method of "corner crossing" to access public land, and the use of a small ladder to get over a fence are common in the rural west. First, there is important historic context: "checkerboard" land ownership, in which alternating PLSS squares are owned by private owners and the federal government, is very common in the west. It is a result of a subsidy/incentive scheme awarded to railroads, in which the railroad was given ownership of 50% of the land within a certain range (up to 40 miles) of the new railroad. This land ownership incentivized the railroad to develop both the route and services along with it, and because the federal government retained ownership of the other 50% it was assumed that the government would benefit from the resulting increase in property values. The way it has actually turned out is less than ideal; in many cases the federal government's squares are public land to this day while the railroad parcels have been sold to ranchers and other land-intensive operations. This results in a situation where vast acreages of public land are only accessible by corner-crossing at the intersections of this checkerboard. Second, fences are put up mostly to keep cattle in, not people out. Where gate aren't installed, you could step over or through them, but with typical barbed wire construction that risks damaging the fence and pissing off a rancher. So on trails there are sometimes permanently fitted triangular ladders, and some people carry a ladder with them for this purpose. The dispute over access to public lands that are near, behind, or otherwise restricted by private land is a long-simmering one in the west that is reaching a head. In many cases public roads pass through privately held ranches. It has long been common in some areas for ranchers to put up "no trespassing" signs on these roads, which must be ignored after confirming the road is public. There have been various incidents of landowners locking gates on public roads, but this isn't so common since it's pretty clearly illegal and usually you can get the sheriff to do something about it. The problem seems to have been getting acute though, and instances of people being run off of public roads and public land adjacent to private holdings seem to be increasing. At the same time, land owners are getting more strategic about acquiring land that fully encircles public parcels so that they can get exclusive access to them. The root of this problem, as best I can tell, is the rise of the private game reserve. Many ranches have essentially been converted away from ranching operations (or at least they have been reduced to a secondary purpose) and now operate mainly as game reserves where people pay a good sum of money to hunt. This means that adjacent public lands are competition, both reducing the game inventory and providing alternative hunting destinations. So the owners of these game reserves have a great motivation to make public land around them inaccessible, and it's been difficult to organize against them since the BLM is not particularly interested in the problem. There are definitely ways in which this is a selected case to test the issue, but the issue is not at all restricted to this case. Hunting organizations are looking for clear precedent that private land owners cannot restrict access to public land, land owners are looking for clear precedent that they can. Since this case has a very "clean" set of facts it's pretty attractive to both sides, as it'll be hard for a court to resolve without taking a stance on the broader issue of the legality of corner crossing. In some areas there are fairly successful "open gate" programs that encourage ranchers to coordinate with state game authorities on providing access to public land that is in or behind their holdings. When the ranchers are mainly in the cattle business or farming, everyone can get along pretty well. There are disputes and there are ranchers that aggressively try to keep people out, but it's not so common. The big problem arises when the ranchers are primarily in the business of selling access to their land for hunting, in which case anyone hunting nearby who hasn't paid them becomes a problem in their eyes.

fritzo 3y ago

How do hunters haul a deer over that little ladder?

cmilton 3y ago
In pieces.

throwaway2037 3y ago

Stupid question warning: This is absolutely an HN "hacking the law" type of question. If an A-frame ladder can be used to cross an intersection of property boundaries, can the owners build a 30 meter high fence at the intersection to render the A-frame ladder obsolete? And if it were built, what kind of legal challenge could be used against it?

throwaway2037 3y ago
Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36171631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36171631 In summary: It is illegal in spirit to block access to federal public lands.

tengbretson 3y ago

I've been in this exact situation elk hunting in Colorado. There was a section of public land with a herd of elk on it that my friend and I could have accessed via corner crossing in about 30 minutes that instead, due to very strategic parcels of land purchased by a rancher, blocked it off such that it was a multi-day hike to get there legally. If I had a lawyer friend and some free time I'd have probably tried a ladder too.

Tepix 3y ago
You were unsure if corner crossing was legal?
- tengbretson 3y ago
  We were unfamiliar with the details of specific cases, but we had heard enough to know it wasn't something we wanted to try.

az226 3y ago

The airspace rights have already been settled. Remaining at issue is waypoint 6 and if trespass did occur. Judge set the max judgment at $100.