Seems like the guberment could spend less on child sex changes and lease a ROW or some such to enable the public to access any hard to reach public tract or leases. That could help avoid all this pettiness of corner crossing.
Except, when all is said and done, there will likely be no need for a lease of a ROW or any other access on the majority of corner crossings in the West.
Originally Posted by 300_savage
I'm not affected by corner crossing, but adjoin a state section, and through my property is the best access to that section. I have no problem letting people use my road to access that state land, only requiring they ask. Most requests are accompanied by "can we hunt yours? which I usually deny. I do tell people if they shoot a deer on state land and it dies on mine they can retrieve it on foot.
My point is I try not to limit others use of public land. If I were in a corner crossing situation I would not consider a leg hovering over 4 square feet of an agricultural section a significant imposition on my ownership rights.
And, upon what I was able to dig up in probably less than an hour this morning, the Law will likely agree with that statement in bold there:
WY statute 10-4-303 reference here (my bold):
Quote
Ultimately this is what is going to be decided in court and could possibly set precedent for the other 9.52 million acres of landlocked Federal Land. All States might be a little different, but Wyoming specifically states, under 10-4-302, that “The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath subject to the right of flight described in W.S. 10-4-303” which states in part “At such a low altitude as to interfere with the existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land or water, is put by the owner”. Maybe the hunters should have jumped over the corner instead?
The WUAA vests ownership of airspace to the landowner subject to a public right of flight. Wis. Stat. § 114.03. Flight is lawful “unless at such a low altitude as to interfere with the then existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land or water, is put by the owner, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous or damaging to persons or property lawfully on the land or water beneath.” Wis. Stat. § 114.04.
Perhaps the question to be answered, in the majority of corner crossing cases: Does the act of crossing over a corner "interfere with the existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land or water, is put by the owner” ?
Your State? Perhaps it would be best to look up the rules there in case you have a day in court. Get a good lawyer to argue your feet were, in effect, flying over the unoccupied land of the private property owner and not interfering with any existing use?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
