2) The 2 tracts that had feet on them were not privately owned.
3) Eshelman doesn't want flights in to the public owned land either.
The discussion here is of taking private lands (at public expense) to give a very few access through those private lands.
What in the Holy Hell is wrong with flying into the public lands? Except that the hunter is on the hook for the cost of the flight time, rather than foisting the cost onto the taxpayer?
What Eshelman wants is of no consequence!
The subject of the thread is referring to the legal proceedings about corner crossing from one existing tract of public land to another existing tract of public land. No trespassing involved at all so it isn't clear why you would bring up what you described as trespassing pheasant hunters.
Eshelman and a large number of people supporting him having control of property he does not own seem to think what he wants does matter.
Then they would be wrong too.
I bring up the pheasant hunters because just like the corner jumpers they think they have a right to use of what others have spent their blood, sweat, and tears to buy and build.
Wah, wah, fugging wah, he has it and I want to run across it! And I want someone else to pay for it! Fugging Socialists!
You can not cross a piece of property without trespassing upon that property, unless you are in FAA controlled airspace. I do not know about other states. I can only use Idaho as an example. In Idaho trespassing includes the words "to cause a force to cross said property". Specifically, you can not shoot across another property. Jumping over the property would seem to be in the same vein.
Let's put it this way. Can I go buy a drone and fly it around in your back yard six feet off the ground. Maybe I am filming your kids playing in the pool, maybe I am not. Maybe I am taking pictures through your windows, maybe I am not. Point being, according to many here, I am not trespassing as long as the drone does not touch the ground.
Most of us here would blow the drone right out of the sky and think we were quite justified.
Had I been the judge in this case, I would have awarded Eshelman $1 in damages and told the hunters next time they would by subject to all trespass penalties.
As I have said many times, If you want to cross another's property, figure out just what it is worth in $ to do so, and see if the property owner will agree. If not, hire that helicopter.
Except someone already hired the aircraft and Eshelman proved his concern isn't trespass on land he owns, but is instead being able to control land he doesn't own.
That is an entirely different matter, and a damned good way for someone to die.
Try to force most people off of anywhere they have a perfectly good reason to be, is going to necessitate use of force. Which will lead to justified self defense.
It isn't a separate matter at all because it is the same person that is wanting to control land he does not own.
Also the same person that tried to claim a waypoint on a GPS system was evidence of trespass. Be like spilling coffee on a map that includes his property and having him try to claim vandalism.
