Corner Crossing - the right of Public Access to Gov Land vs the rights of Private Owners

Wandering Sagebrush

Free Range Human
Site Team
RV LIFE Pro
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
11,177
Location
Northeast Oregon
There is a recent case where people were denied access to public lands at a four corners boundary where the individuals had to step across privately owned air space as they moved from one parcel of government land to another. Here is a link to Wyoming Public Radio. The courts have granted access to the public, but the land owner has appealed. Interesting…

 
The solution is for the governmental entities involved to purchase the private land or purchase a public easement to allow crossing over for those that do not respect private property.

If the private landholders do not protect their property, it will become public property through adverse possession. They really have little choice but to stand up for their private property rights.

Is there no other way to access one public land from the other public land except through that corner?

Paul
 
There is a recent case where people were denied access to public lands at a four corners boundary where the individuals had to step across privately owned air space as they moved from one parcel of government land to another. Here is a link to Wyoming Public Radio. The courts have granted access to the public, but the land owner has appealed. Interesting…

That was pretty good.Funny but very sad.
Thanks
Frank
 
Paul, it is a landlocked parcel, and I agree that an easement is in order. If the landowner refuses, there are ways to help them see the light. Eminent domain (which I don’t like) being one.
 
One of the issues here is that the large landowners - we are talking owners of multi sections of land - have exclusive use of these parcels of public land (640 acres each square mile section). Much of this exclusive use is for guided hunting of trophy big game animals, game animals that belong to the public. With the advent of accurate handheld GPS units, the public (us) can now find the corners where these sections of land touch and step across without trespassing. The private landowners (and guiding services) are working hard to stop public access to public lands and keep their exclusive use.
 
One of the issues here is that the large landowners - we are talking owners of multi sections of land - have exclusive use of these parcels of public land (640 acres each square mile section). Much of this exclusive use is for guided hunting of trophy big game animals, game animals that belong to the public. With the advent of accurate handheld GPS units, the public (us) can now find the corners where these sections of land touch and step across without trespassing. The private landowners (and guiding services) are working hard to stop public access to public lands and keep their exclusive use.
Well put. Another in a long series of wealthy landowners trying to grab public resources for their exclusive use. Usually for a profit. Been going on for at least 150 years in the west.
 
Smaller parcels, not as much "wealth". After the Walker flood in 1997 several pieces of property along the river were bought by FEMA, turned over to the state who gave them to the county to deal with. A few years later grant money to develop opportunities for physical exercise was available (the reason there is a parcourse [growing weeds] just south of town)

Part of the plan was to build trails that would access these public parcels, the park and the river along the way. I walk so these proposals made me happy but the BS that ensued was epic. "It will lower our quality of life." "We don't want those kind of people walking by our homes." etc, etc. Someone began a rumor (I know who it was - and I know this is how politics operate in this miserly little town) ) that the county was going to use eminent domain (the river is public to the average high water line) Another rumor was of a "truck stop" that was to be built south of town (the actual county plans call for a fish hatchery in that location) Supposedly there were going to be a half dozen bridges built across the river (yeah, right) There were other absurd declarations that a quick look at the county plans could have dispelled but that is not how people in this town operate.

I attended a public meeting. I got up and spoke - introducing myself as "one of those people" and apologized for altering the quality of life of the homes I walked by on the way to the meeting. I reminded them I was walking and asked what kind of harm I could do - walk off with their big screen TVs? One couple whined that people walking by made their dogs bark. The county had to repeatedly silence the eminent domain lie and one character who has a home on the river (who may have believed the lie in the beginning) finally stood up in his denim coveralls, shouted "I feel like I've been dipped in sh**" and walked out.

The county shrugged their shoulders and gave up. The trails were not built and the county owned parcels have been essentially gifted to the adjacent landowners who have continued the time honored tradition of questioning, harassing and running off anyone who dares to use the public land and the river. I think the old guy who carried a shotgun in these encounters died. I don't know if someone else has taken his place.

But now I understand a little better. My next door neighbors own an adjacent parcel that several people (including me) use to access the BLM land above our homes. A few years ago someone got into their downstairs rooms and took life jackets and other small stuff that could be carried off. They now lock their gate, their doors and installed security cameras (when we bought this house 30 years ago we asked for the keys - there were none) The other access to the public lands in the vicinity has also become problematic as it is not a county maintained road yet it cannot be designated "private" because of the trailhead at the end of it. Unfortunately a few of the homeowners do not wish to or are incapable of grasping the nuance. In spite of living here and using the trailhead for 30 years I've been threatened and harassed enough that I avoid the road and cross the private property of a friend instead. One of the houses at the end of the road has a history of allowing their dogs to run loose which for all practical purposes keeps the public out but that may have changed some when the horse owners and other "important" people in the area complained. My calls to Animal Control must have been lost.

It is complicated. The public is entitled to access to public lands but far too many of the public are lacking in decency.
 
After 30+ years in public service, including holding numerous public meetings, I can say with assurance that 'sea lawyers' are all too common and very few people go to information meetings to get informed. Such meetings are very often seen as an opportunity for angry people to air their grievances with an audience. Oddly, some of the most angry people in public settings become quite friendly and open when in a one on one or small group setting. Person to person chats over the fence rail or leaning on the truck bed are successful approaches used by the most effective people in Land Trusts and other conservation groups. People often just want to be respected and heard.

The problem with very wealthy people is the difficulty in trying to actually talk to them. They seldom encounter anyone with opinions different than their own. If the owner says to their hired hands, in a general way, to "Make sure no trespassers are allowed", then the hired help will not likely go against their employer. Second hand reports of trespassing often result in a call to either a lawyer or the sheriff. Pretty good chance then that listening and understanding stops and threats of legal action result.

A wise judge or regulatory official will often recommend mediation. Does not always work, but it often does.

Weirdly, when everyone 'lawyers-up' and some time of blustering and posturing passes, the lawyers will often work out a deal that everyone can live with (and the lawyers get paid for.) Call it very expensive mediation. This also does not always work.

Land Trusts and other conservation groups try to get to people before the lawyers get involved. Some sensible and durable solutions can emerge.
 
Smaller parcels, not as much "wealth". After the Walker flood in 1997 several pieces of property along the river were bought by FEMA, turned over to the state who gave them to the county to deal with. A few years later grant money to develop opportunities for physical exercise was available (the reason there is a parcourse [growing weeds] just south of town)

Part of the plan was to build trails that would access these public parcels, the park and the river along the way. I walk so these proposals made me happy but the BS that ensued was epic. "It will lower our quality of life." "We don't want those kind of people walking by our homes." etc, etc. Someone began a rumor (I know who it was - and I know this is how politics operate in this miserly little town) ) that the county was going to use eminent domain (the river is public to the average high water line) Another rumor was of a "truck stop" that was to be built south of town (the actual county plans call for a fish hatchery in that location) Supposedly there were going to be a half dozen bridges built across the river (yeah, right) There were other absurd declarations that a quick look at the county plans could have dispelled but that is not how people in this town operate.

I attended a public meeting. I got up and spoke - introducing myself as "one of those people" and apologized for altering the quality of life of the homes I walked by on the way to the meeting. I reminded them I was walking and asked what kind of harm I could do - walk off with their big screen TVs? One couple whined that people walking by made their dogs bark. The county had to repeatedly silence the eminent domain lie and one character who has a home on the river (who may have believed the lie in the beginning) finally stood up in his denim coveralls, shouted "I feel like I've been dipped in sh**" and walked out.

The county shrugged their shoulders and gave up. The trails were not built and the county owned parcels have been essentially gifted to the adjacent landowners who have continued the time honored tradition of questioning, harassing and running off anyone who dares to use the public land and the river. I think the old guy who carried a shotgun in these encounters died. I don't know if someone else has taken his place.

But now I understand a little better. My next door neighbors own an adjacent parcel that several people (including me) use to access the BLM land above our homes. A few years ago someone got into their downstairs rooms and took life jackets and other small stuff that could be carried off. They now lock their gate, their doors and installed security cameras (when we bought this house 30 years ago we asked for the keys - there were none) The other access to the public lands in the vicinity has also become problematic as it is not a county maintained road yet it cannot be designated "private" because of the trailhead at the end of it. Unfortunately a few of the homeowners do not wish to or are incapable of grasping the nuance. In spite of living here and using the trailhead for 30 years I've been threatened and harassed enough that I avoid the road and cross the private property of a friend instead. One of the houses at the end of the road has a history of allowing their dogs to run loose which for all practical purposes keeps the public out but that may have changed some when the horse owners and other "important" people in the area complained. My calls to Animal Control must have been lost.

It is complicated. The public is entitled to access to public lands but far too many of the public are lacking in decency.
thx for your post. sounds frustrating. i live in urban pdx, so, much more dense population. keep up the good work, and efforts.
 
very few people go to information meetings to get informed.
Yup. But what is so frustrating to me is the people who seem to believe (and then repeat ad naseum) whatever a neighbor with more agenda than ethics tells them is "true". I don't think these people are entirely illiterate and the documents are available for the public to read online as well as in the public library and the general store. I call it voluntary ignorance and a general distrust, not entirely unwarranted, of anything "the government" has to say.

Sorry for the thread drift but as another example of rumors carrying more weight than reality another outspoken senior citizen and I are currently dealing with this odd kind of ignorance as we try to muster community enthusiasm for a Fire Safe Council which would allow us access to funding to help people who due to age or income cannot clean up their property. It was shot down once (as was a tax assessment for the volunteer fire department - twice now) in spite of losing more than half the town to the Mountain View Fire. I think I'll go pound my head against a wall for a change of pace.
 
I've been following the Park fire closely and its just mind boggling the amount of misinformation going around. Even the old "Jewish space lasers" junk has been repeated and not in jest. I feel for you. Dealing with neighbors is not fun. My previous residence was over an ancient natural gas deposit that been sucked dry. They wanted to use it for local storage in case a major pipeline was interrupted. I attended the meetings. It hadn' t leaked in millions of years but the geologists lost out to the people who were convinced it was another way of sticking it to the poor people in spite of the fact we'd have gotten regular payments from the company. Sure hope that pipeline doesn't break in the middle of winter.
 
its just mind boggling the amount of misinformation going around.
A lie can circle the globe ten times while the truth is getting its pants on.

I do have some wonderful neighbors but I think a lot of the people around here spend far too much time watching television and buttering their egos. And while people just want to shrug it off as small town antics I do believe this community has elevated gossip, especially truly malicious reputation and business destroying gossip, to a rather ugly type of art. What is really interesting is that it makes no difference which end of the "political" spectrum they are on - everyone is vulnerable to any BS if they can't or won't think for themselves. The space laser thing is a fine example of not thinking. At all. I mean - what would be the motivation for starting a fire in Bidwell Park with space lasers when it can be done quite handily by pushing your mother's burning automobile into a ravine?
 
A lie can circle the globe ten times while the truth is getting its pants on.

The space laser thing is a fine example of not thinking. At all. I mean - what would be the motivation for starting a fire in Bidwell Park with space lasers when it can be done quite handily by pushing your mother's burning automobile into a ravine?
True.

The world is a confusing place. Even if you try hard to keep up.

I suppose it is less unnerving to low information people if they think they can see patterns in the daily swirl of events. More comforting than being completely baffled all the time.

No known remedy for this condition, which has always been among us.
 
Back to the issue of corner jumping.i don’t like the idea of eminent domain but in this situation I think it’s the best solution. Pay the Rich land owners a dollar an acre for their serious loss and let them fix their own fences!
 
The "land locking corners" issue is huge and any resolution has pervasive effects on public access to pubic lands as well as on private property rights. According to mapping software seller OnX, there are some 27,000 land-locking corners in the West which closes off thousands and thousands of whole 640 acre sections of public land since it can't be accessed from the 4 corners at which it touches contiguous public land without at least a nominal "air trespass" even if one were to climb fences exactly at the corner point and never set foot on the private property on either side. All the way across WY, UT, and NV, the Federal Gummint deeded alternating sections of land in a checkerboard pattern to the railroad companies in partial payment for construction of the railroad, so for 10 miles each side of the railroad, the public and private section touch. Comments concerning the private property owners having a huge interest in prohibition of air trespass due to them otherwise having exclusive access to the landlocked public sections are dead on target. In most cases, especially for purchases during our lifetimes, today's owners paid a premium for sections bordering public sections for exactly that reason. Whether or not that's fair or not is the subject of other long and intelligent debate, but the fact of the matter is that the private landowners have a case.
Eminent domain seems like a simple solution but it is not. The laws concerning "a taking" of real estate for the pubic good all require fair compensation to the owner. The challenge is always how to value that portion of the land which is taken, and never is that value simply some allocation of a per acre value for a parcel on the whole prorated down to a few square feet. Instead, the value taken can be rightly expressed as the damages (loss of value) for the remaining property not condemned. It's fairly easy for appraisers to demonstrate the damages to the value of the remaining parcel due to loss of just one yard square at a section corner due to the instant and dramatic increase in public access provided by the ability to cross at section corners. So, since fair compensation is required, you can bet that any moneyed private landowner is going to litigate the proposed condemnation award like a mad dog. Merely tossing the landowner a buck per corner is not remotely feasible and it ain't gonna happen that way. Now take the 27,000 corners so affected and multiply by hundreds to thousands of dollars of loss of value per acre to each of 639 remaining acres for the two private sections touched by the newly opened public sections, and you have what we here in North Carolina call "a damn mess".
The whole corner crossing controversy reminds me of a quote which I believe was attributed to Churchill: For every complex and difficult problem, there is a simple and easy solution. And it doesn't work.

Foy
 
I grew up corner crossing. There were three backyards and then the elementary school/ Little League ball fields which was the opposite quadrant from my family home. One of the neighbors seemed to be fine with my brothers climbing a fence but had something to say to me because I was not a boy.
 
Back
Top Bottom