Access. Can onX Help?

When one of you experts can show me a "right to access federal land" I will think you're actually on to something. So far all I've seen is opinions, mostly baseless.

The land owners (and the states that elevate their rights above others) may come to regret trying to enforce or make "no corner crossing" laws to access federal land.

Common and statutory law provides various remedies for "landlocked" parcels, derived from the overall notion that the owner of a landlocked parcel should not be denied use of the property. For example, a property owner may be able to obtain an easement of necessity over adjoining property to access a landlocked parcel. Some states allow private use of eminent domain to obtain access.

The usual fact pattern in which an easement of necessity will be created is where a landowner subdivides a parcel, retains the landlocked portion, and has no other means of access. Presumably Wyoming titles can be traced back to federal ownership (which ownership was acquired by treaty with, or theft from, the indigenous peoples of the territory). Generally, an easement of necessity will allow road access--including the right to use an existing road or to build one if none exists.

The federal government should get aggressive about asserting its rights to access landlocked federal lands.

If the state made corner crossing legal on foot, and then protected the property owner against potential legal liability from the corner crossers, who is harmed?

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

When one of you experts can show me a "right to access federal land" I will think you're actually on to something. So far all I've seen is opinions, mostly baseless.

There is good basis for many of these opinions, just seems you have a contrasting opinion.
This is how the wealthy maintain control. They exploit the laws or lack there of. There is only one way to stand up for the public and that is by electing people who will pass laws in the interest of the general public.
Laws get passed on peoples opinions. You need to work first on peoples opinions to get the right thing done.
Too many states are deeply entrenched in the republican mindset of protecting the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the benefit to the general population. You will need to change the mind of republicans who work very hard to maintain the advantages of the wealthy over the public.

Dr Logic wrote:

Have to agree with this 100%. This all just seems like a non issue people are making an issue just because they've run out of other issues to complain about. Get a hobby. Knitting is fun. 

Look around, the environment is kind of screwed and that's 100% due to people. Let's give the earth a win here and just stay out until we can figure out how to ethically live with the land we already have access to. 

What an uneducated view of environmentalism. People walking around, or climbing, or biking, or even responsibly hunting are not harming the Earth. The environment is not screwed because of people. It’s screwed because of governments and corporations. Individuals don’t have enough power to affect the earth. It’s businesses that are damaging the environment purely for profit. It’s cheaper to not care about the environment so government must hold businesses accountable because they will abuse the planet and poison people in the search for higher profit margins.

Dr Logic wrote:

Look around, the environment is kind of screwed and that's 100% due to people. Let's give the earth a win here and just stay out until we can figure out how to ethically live with the land we already have access to. 

Aren’t people more likely to want to protect and preserve areas they can access and experience firsthand?

I feel like there’s a famous Muir quote about that but I’m having trouble recalling it at the moment.

Eric Roewrote:

I don't respect some rich asshole's right to own thousands of acres of unimproved land. 

Eric, do you respect poor assholes' right to trespass?

Personally I prefer not to call people assholes.

sandiegowrote:

Individuals don’t have enough power to affect the earth. It’s businesses that are damaging the environment purely for profit. It’s cheaper to not care about the environment so government must hold businesses accountable because they will abuse the planet and poison people in the search for higher profit margins.

No. Individuals also affect the earth. You’ll need to qualify that.

Land mangers of the local NF Wilderness here definitely see individuals as an impact.  It’s just that the new unofficial trail that gets tromped down over time cannot be easily pinned to one individual. Still, an individual can be cited for trespassing.

Edit: About the topic’s question, “Can OnX help?” The answer is “no”.  If it were not OnX helping to identify boundaries, it would be some other company.

Klaus theKwrote:

If the state made corner crossing legal on foot, and then protected the property owner against potential legal liability from the corner crossers, who is harmed?

Wealthy landowners who treat public lands as their own private playgrounds, that's who.

The property in question. It’s like a 2 for 1 sale on land…..

Matthew Schumannwrote:

The property in question. It’s like a 2 for 1 sale on land…..

Yep.  That was the deal when the land was bought

Bill Lawrywrote:

Yep.  That was the deal when the land was bought

Agree they bought the right to have convenient access to double the land, and no doubt paid more because it borders public land.

Disagree they bought the right to block access to others from that public land.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. 

Matthew Schumannwrote:

Agree they bought the right to have convenient access to double the land, and no doubt paid more because it borders public land.

Disagree they bought the right to block access to others from that public land.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. 

I would say they bought the ability to access double the land. Not the right. The likely paid extra because they thought they could lock the public out. I'm hoping for a legal outcome from these suits that clearly shuts that down and protects the public's right to access public land.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

When one of you experts can show me a "right to access federal land" I will think you're actually on to something. So far all I've seen is opinions, mostly baseless.

OMG!  You are so right!  In the case of beaches, they must use feelings to grant access!

Matthew Schumannwrote:

Agree they bought the right to have convenient access to double the land, and no doubt paid more because it borders public land.

Disagree they bought the right to block access to others from that public land.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. 

It appears that the land owners are outfitters that provide elk hunts.  I'd speculate that they bought the land to block access to the public land in order to decrease pressure on the elk population. This would increase the elk numbers on their own land.  Considering that people are paying $20K for trophy elk hunts in WY and CO this isn't out of the realm of possibility.  

Yurywrote:

Eric, do you respect poor assholes' right to trespass?

I don't consider it trespassing.  It might be trespassing in the legal sense -- I guess the lawsuit will decide that.  In case it wasn't clear, I'm a strong supporter of right-to-roam policy.

Personally I prefer not to call people assholes.

If the shoe fits.  Personally I prefer to not be a boot licker for the ultra wealthy.  I can't imagine taking the side of some jerk because he was "harmed" by (checking notes here) someone passing 6 inches into his property, in the corner of a lot that's hundreds of meters away from his home.

I think corner crossing should be legal. 

I also think somebody should make a gofundme to get those Missouri hunters a helicopter chartered trip to their favorite land locked elk hunting spot in Montana. That should negate the trespass issue :) 

In March, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling in favor of the hunters who were being sued by a landowner for corner crossing to obtain access to public land. Last week, the Supreme Court denied cert (meaning the Supreme Court would not review the decision), so the decision in favor of the hunters is final.

In the states covered by the 10th Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming), you can corner cross to access checkerboarded public land, whether or not state law would consider corner crossing to be trespassing, so long as you don't t physically touch the private land (the hunters had used a ladder to straddle the corner).