The corner crossing should probably move to its own thread but-


The argument is-
Terms Used In Montana Code 45-6-203
(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another. (2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal trespass to property shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6 months, or both.

The argument goes-
If you put a quarter on the ground with 4 lines moving out from the center point. And you step over the diagonals, parts of your body enters the adjacent squares.

Predictably, if the Court rules that entering someone’s property is ok, then that raises a takings argument.

“The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." While the Fifth Amendment by itself only applies to actions by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment ...”

Onx maps is purportedly cataloging how many corners lock land.

The laws the laws.
Some laws are BS.
This is one of those.

A problem we have in this country is the lack of
reason and justice. No one can claim harm over crossing that
corner. It is not the same as someone parking on you pasture
and hunting their way to public land.

But, in our legalistic, by the book, and expanding on precedence
legal system, it could be claimed as the same.

It is hard to write laws that apply to every situation.
If someone started a trail across our property we would all be upset. Additionally, we all know that people don’t always stay on the trail.
Hard to blame landowners for not wanting to deal with people who want to control the landowners property.
On the other hand it seems inappropriate to profiteer off the public lands.

Once onx identifies all of the corner crossing locations then maybe each could be addressed on the actual situation rather than the theoretical.

I have read some on the evolution of the property , fences, trespassing in Texas..
Much of that issues seems to have evolved around the time wire fence or barb-wire made it possible to fence larger areas at a somewhat reasonable cost. This created the situation where hoof-borne traffic would encounter a barrier in what had been a regular path of transit...

This led to fence cutting by some which led to laws as those with fences got tired of the cost of repairing the cut fences..understandable particularly when wire fence was new and a significant investment...
So I have read....

I imagine similar issues developed in any state that was divided up in the railroad grid system (township, range, section,etc) though i have run into similar issues in states not using the TRS system. Sections of dirt county roads enclosed within a large ranch. It can make for a long way around the closed section of road...

So mandate a 3' wide corner crossing right of away, non vehicular, mark it, pay the landowner for it. Would take some time, effort and money, but I bet sportsmen/hunters would pony up for it.

Land owners will of course be opposed. For good reason. But fugem- I'm "the public" with right to access "my" land.

I would feel different as a land-owner dealing wilth azzwipes befouling my land in any way, shape or form, outside the access corridors.

and it is going to happen.

God, I'm glad I'm in Alaska, despite Jimmy Carter, and Native Land Claims....!

Here's a classic case near here. The yellow is BLM which backs up to Nat Forest to the north. White is private. Onx is off a bit, the red line should be right on the edge of the yellow.
That corner comes down to within a couple feet of the public road but you can't get to it. It's fenced and posted.

So question. Not knowing the level of public road. What is the "right of way" associated with that road. I have seen anywhere from three to fifteen (?) Feet....
It seems that would override posting, depending on state law...

Civilization isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Sometimes the problem with civilization is.


it isn't very civilized at all.

Geno

And more so all the time it seems.

In the several years my wife taught K, she would start with 2 mice in the classroom cage. They got along fine. By the time the year was out, there would be maybe a dozen, all in constant stress and fighting. She used it as a lesson.

One in there for all of us.

It's fenced right up to the narrow road so there's no place to park. It gets vertical real quick.

Rock Chuck.
Usually IME there is a prescribed right of way set by either the DOT or County... I am sure someone has looked unto the issue at some point... but just so you know where i was going . Land owners don't always follow the ROW rules ..and no one usually brings it up until the DOT or County wants to do some work in the ROW...

In ND the section lines have , I think, a 30' right of way. Most - well some - landowners fenced accordingly. We drove a lot of those, looking for what we called "sand cherries". Made good jelly. Not bad eating. Don't know what the hell they are, actually.... . Low, not-very-bushy things. Native prarie things.

Just googled it - "western" or "Nebraska" sand cherry.

Never found any outside of native prairie - hence the fenced out section lines. I guess cows eat them too.

The point is WTF?

Las
North Dakota public section line is a rather unique system. But those Norwegians were very civilized, ironically.

Rock Chuck
A quick google shows Idaho may have 50 ft easements. That public land may be legally accessible. May be worth investigating a little more. Now practical access may be a challenge.



This becomes the 5th amendment takings issue. It would require a change politically in the state, the conservatives have defeated the issue twice in the legislature. And after the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo, people are weary of emanate domain.

The devil in the detail question is pay how much? Valuation would be a challenge.

Once onx identifies how many actual parcels there are, the process may become less theoretical. At this point, sportsman do not carry the political clout.

I went looking for a photo of a Z style pedestrian gate but all I found were handicap gates, so that requires however many extra inches and extra complexity.

That corner I posted is just an example. It's not a critical landlock because if you did get on the public land at that point, you'd have a very long hard climb to get to anywhere you might find game.

Similar to this?

I'll cry foul. I can't get my llamas through that.

And with an extra "leg" in it to make the z and get you to the diagonal corner, you'd really be twisted up!

I'm not sure what the issue here is, we had to go to court years ago to get access to an inside eighty. A high priced mess, lawyers, surveyors.

I would hope it would go back to the intent. Was it intended to be public land or was the intent the land owner could control the public land?

and THAT is what nobody seems to want to touch.

Some sections were never intended to be public land, they just reverted to the government when homesteaders failed.
Some sections were intended to be state trust lands to raise revenue for schools, but access was not included.
Some were intended to produce forests, as revenue.
And some were created as grazing lands.
I think the concept of “ public land” is somewhat of a misnomer.

Many parcels of land were actually set aside for a specific purpose. The secondary use just happens to be a benefit, and probably should not be viewed as a right.

Somebody or somebodies with a vested interest for their own benefit got the ear of people in the goodole boy govt law network back in the day to make things like this happen. All across america in most cases it seems.
Same issues here in Tn with state and fed lands being inaccessible by surrounding private landowners.
Basically they consider they own it for their own use carte blanche.
Cause it is the way it has always been for them.
And they know the massive legal action to grant a ROW cost huge benjamins and John Q public aint gonna pay to have it done.

JMO....

It's a catch-22, the corner, if you go by the "4 points" argument early in the thread, is both public and private and it comes to air space, so my foot is on public as I step over the corner, but to get there my foot and body take up to much space, so I'm in both. Which wins?

The taking clause is interesting, because is gives all benefit to the private. the only way this will work for "taking" is a lowering of property taxes, anything else will spiral into unaffordable. By "taking" you are dropping teh property value of many of the private values. That's the guts of it. REgardless of how we got here, the land is worth extra BECAUSE of the landlock.

Bob,
You mean the private "locking" land is worth more?

Because land locked (flag lots w/ an easement for the pole) are sometime worth less.
But it depends on the frontage situation. Sometimes there is a premium to be insulated from a busy road...

Blue Duck,
If you can figure out intent then there may be another option. I know in some states there has been a push for easements for water access (usually "significant" water bodies, vs. trout streams). This is probably a "waters of the state/republic/commonwealth" issue, so the parallel would probably be based upon established intent where public access was included..

Idaho, like many states, has a recreational easement on all navigable waters in the state. It allows free access within the normal high water lines. Navigable in Idaho is basically defined as any water big enough to float a float tube or a 6" log.
This opens up all but tiny streams to public access through private land as long as you stay within the high water marks. If the stream is somehow blocked by a fence, irrigation dam, or other obstruction, you have the right to leave the high water lines long enough to get around the obstruction.

We have a premier fly fishing stream north of here named Silver Creek that passes through quite a few miles of private land. Back in the '70's one of the landowners fenced it off and posted it as he was tired of fisherman on his land. At that time it hadn't been officially recognized as navigable even though it's considerably larger than other recognized streams. A co-worker of mine and 2 of his buddies took float tubes and floated it just to prove it's navigable. They got the job done and the landowner was forced to reopen it.

Thanks Rock Chuck that clarifies /parallels what I referred to as "Waters of the x/y/z"

Where I was going with the easement angle is that some states were working on water access easements. Basically a corridor down the property line of 1 out of x parcels to reach the water... sort of a undeveloped boat/canoe launch...

I imagine it would be rather controversial but it would provide some measure of access...

https://www.onxmaps.com/pdf/PublicLands_Report_2019.pdf

If people want to read the on x report.