This is fascinating :)<p>> 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.<p>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.
That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots:<p><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/data=!3m1!1e3" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/...</a>
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.<p>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.
Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this.<p><pre><code> 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.
</code></pre>
[1] <a href="https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Prog...</a>
> <i>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.</i><p>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.)
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.<p>It's silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.
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.
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.
Why don't private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner?<p>I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.
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.<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-wealthy-public-beaches-private-security" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...</a>
Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing?<p>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.
In some countries, it's not a problem: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam</a>
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?
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?