Mountain Project Logo

Access. Can onX Help?

Original Post
Tradiban · · 951-527-7959 · Joined Jul 2020 · Points: 212
Klaus theK · · Fruita · Joined Oct 2018 · Points: 1

Interesting article. It’s hard for me to inhabit a mindset where my access to public lands isn’t guaranteed. If the public lands exist, my right to access them should be enforced. Corner crossing seems like a clean way to preserve that. I just can’t see how the land owners are being anything but jerks. 

Cherokee Nunes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2015 · Points: 0

Those land locked parcels are being preserved from the foot stomping masses. OnX would unlock them, for profit. Fuck that. Stay out the land can use a break from all of you.

rockhard · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 75
Cherokee Nuneswrote:

Those land locked parcels are being preserved from the foot stomping masses. OnX would unlock them, for profit. Fuck that. Stay out the land can use a break from all of you.

Did you read the article? This has little to do with preservation...it's about land owners securing private access to make money

Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,815
rockhardwrote:

Did you read the article? This has little to do with preservation...it's about land owners securing private access to make money

Depends on perspective.

The article is all about tactics - who gets the game, without regard to the strategic - wilderness preservation or not. Just because the latter is omitted from the article does not decrease its’ relevance.

The article reads like an advert for OnX.

Josh Z · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2020 · Points: 15
Klaus theKwrote:

Interesting article. It’s hard for me to inhabit a mindset where my access to public lands isn’t guaranteed. If the public lands exist, my right to access them should be enforced. Corner crossing seems like a clean way to preserve that. I just can’t see how the land owners are being anything but jerks. 

Exactly my mindset.  I definitely think the rights of landowners are very important, but I don't see how corner crossing infringes on their rights in any way.  Now if we get in the conversation of easements for public land access, that's a different topic.

Bill Lawry · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,815

What was in the relevant document when the private land was purchased?  Was there a public  right of way at the corners or not? Apparently not. And now the land owners are dicks for not just giving up right of way?

And that’s where to start - the document - not with some yahoos blatantly taking matters into their own hands.  Who are the ones being dicks?

Ha ha. MP is not going to get to a consensus on this. We can’t even agree whether first party on a route decides whether a later but faster party can pass.

Carolina · · Front Range NC · Joined Nov 2010 · Points: 20

Money is access.  

Cherokee Nunes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2015 · Points: 0

Did you read the article? This has little to do with preservation...it's about land owners securing private access to make money

I read the article. And I've actually dealt personally with landlocked BLM parcels. I stand by what I wrote:

Those land locked parcels are being preserved from the foot stomping masses. OnX would unlock them, for profit. Fuck that. Stay out the land can use a break from all of you.

I'm not sympathetic to the out of state hunters, at all. I wouldn't be sympathetic to out of state climbers either. Just because the Fed owns a parcel of land doesn't mean you, or me, or any individual citizen, owns that land and is therefore entitled to cross private property to get to it. It's 30 million acres that are inaccessible, so friggin what?

JNE · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 2,110

Lol

PWZ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 0
Bill Lawrywrote:

And now the land owners are dicks for not just giving up right of way?

yes.

Big Red · · Seattle · Joined Apr 2013 · Points: 1,191

If you're concerned about preserving that land then fight for it to be preserved and inaccessible to all, not just people who aren't rich enough to buy adjacent parcels. Rich land owners buying up private "preserves" to use as for-profit game reserves isn't conservation.

Cherokee Nunes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2015 · Points: 0

 Rich land owners buying up private "preserves" to use as for-profit game reserves isn't conservation.

Is that so? Just because you typed it? Conservation is a big tent and I suspect your definition does not line up all that well with the reality of conservation efforts in the U.S.

JNE · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 2,110

"Here in Hawaii, the beaches are all considered state property and private land owners are required to provide an access point to reach the beach over their property. some have tried to block the public from access and have ended up losing strips of property by force to allow that access. Seems like a sound policy nation wide to me. "

That's the top comment in the article I linked.

sandiego · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 0

If the land is public property then access by the public should not be denied.  Is the land really even public if only neighboring land owners have access? 

I would argue that if only neighboring property owners have access to a beach and keep the public out, then they have created a private beach by forcably keeping the public away. Even in this case you could argue people could still access the beach by boat. However, courts have upheld access pathways to the beach through private property to these public beaches. I don't see isolated public lands set within private parcels as being any different than public beach access.

Any property owner that thinks his property allows exclusive private access to public lands is just being selfish. Public means the entire population, not a select few wealthy landowners.

Whether the motive is for profit or solitude, it should not matter, the land is not theirs to blockade.

A business(es) or person(s) should not be able to monopolize a public resource without some type of legal contract from the government.

Corner cutting with a damn ladder to get over signs and fences seems like a dumb solution to this problem. We need to pass laws to secure public access to these public lands unless they are areas designated as no people at all allowed. Private property owners should never have exclusive access to public lands, especially with the purpose of charging the public for access.

Allen Sanderson · · On the road to perdition · Joined Jul 2007 · Points: 1,100

That land owner is going to really mad when someone decides to land a helicopter on said public. Unless, specifically prohibited or designated wilderness. Such landings are legal. 

Eric Roe · · Spokane · Joined Jan 2016 · Points: 16

I don't respect some rich asshole's right to own thousands of acres of unimproved land. It gives me the same vibe as a toddler yelling "It's mine, you can't have it!".  The Brits have it figured out with the right to roam.  From the article, “No one’s going to grant access out of the goodness of their heart,”.  Incredibly depressing.

Ideally this country would set up its own right to roam laws (not going to happen). Alternatively, there should be automatic and implicit easements if the land is otherwise inaccessible (I can walk in a straight line through your property to the public lands), which may already be the case according to the lobbyist in the article.  I guess we'll have to see how that ends up being interpreted.  As a bare minimum, the goal for every public land user should be "corner crossing" codified into law, so all such corners have an automatic 2m wide access easement. Parcels without such corners should be required to have public access negotiated as soon as possible. If necessary, invoke eminent domain.

The whole "conservation" tangent is not relevent here.  It's the job of the land managers to decide how best to conserve the land, and if they find that limiting access is the best way to do so, then so be it.  It's not up to John Pharmaceutical the ultra rich summer-homer to decide that for everyone else.

Dylan Pike · · Knoxville, TN · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 555
Dr Logic wrote:

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. 

Except the private property owners are using the locked out public land for all sorts of stuff - grazing, hunting, OHV trails, etc. These corner crossing cases are keeping the general public pedestrians out while the adjacent private property owners ride horses, graze cattle, drive trucks/vehicles all over the public land. The general public is hardly the issue here with regards to environmental degradation. I can't believe climbers are seriously supporting private property owners locking out the public from accessing public lands.

ETA:

Bill Lawrywrote:

What was in the relevant document when the private land was purchased?  Was there a public  right of way at the corners or not? Apparently not. And now the land owners are dicks for not just giving up right of way?

The hunters didn't touch the private property....they simply passed through the "airspace". Do you really think the private property owner was violated by these guys' shoulders passing above their fence? 

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Klaus theKwrote:

Interesting article. It’s hard for me to inhabit a mindset where my access to public lands isn’t guaranteed. If the public lands exist, my right to access them should be enforced. Corner crossing seems like a clean way to preserve that. I just can’t see how the land owners are being anything but jerks. 

The land owners are being jerks.  Unfortunately they're legally correct jerks.  :(

With a few limited exceptions, have no legal requirements to guaranteed access to public land.  In some states you there aren't even legal requirements to allow access to private land.  Very, very weird.  

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Dylan Pikewrote:

Except the private property owners are using the locked out public land for all sorts of stuff - grazing, hunting, OHV trails, etc. These corner crossing cases are keeping the general public pedestrians out while the adjacent private property owners ride horses, graze cattle, drive trucks/vehicles all over the public land. The general public is hardly the issue here with regards to environmental degradation. I can't believe climbers are seriously supporting private property owners locking out the public from accessing public lands.

ETA:

The hunters didn't touch the private property....they simply passed through the "airspace". Do you really think the private property owner was violated by these guys' shoulders passing above their fence? 

Unfortunately when you own property you own a certain amount of airspace rights as well.  The amount differs by state.  Simply put - you don't need to touch the ground in order to trespass.  It can be odd I know.  

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Dr Logic wrote:

Perhaps that happens in Utah, but not as much as you think in Wyoming. And I have no issue with cattle grazing or horses used on those lands as most BML land is leased out for exactly this purpose for pennies - even though others are more than welcome to use it. The only difference between publicly accessible land and inaccessible land is the amount of use it gets. Far less if it's not accessible. I've been to plenty of remote places in Wyoming that you have to go well out of your way to get to to avoid private land and it is far less used than easily accessible places. I'm all for keeping it that way. 

Yes, there is a legal amount of space above land, which changes from place to place (usually has something to do with reasonable use in conjunction with the land). Federally, I believe it's 500 feet. It's ridiculous to think that anything above the ground doesn't belong to the landowner - which logic would then dictate that any structures (yeah, the house you're sitting in right now) then belongs to the public. 

Corner crossing may be illegal because of this.

https://www.wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-04Trespass-CornerCrossing.pdf

EDIT: I am in no way attempting to agree with Chad.

Ah but you are!  

All joking aside.  Corner crossing very odd issue that I don't think many people are aware of.  This is an informative thread!  

EDIT:  I am in no way attempting to praise Tradi.  

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Access. Can onX Help?"

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.