https://www.themeateater.com/c...0Conservation%20News

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that corner crossing on federal land does not violate federal law. The ruling marks the most significant victory to date for public land advocates who say that crossing from one block of public land to another should be legal.

“Put simply, we found any inclosure that effectively prevents access to public land for lawful use is an unlawful inclosure that is a proscribed violation of federal law,” the judges said in their decision.

The decision legalizes corner crossing between sections of federal land in the six states under the 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

Good.

Excellent news!

This a landmark decision. I suspect it will be further challenged and may be pushed to the Supreme Court (if they agree to hear it). Meanwhile, it has the potential to significantly change the hunting landscape.

Theoretically this should open up a bunch of land but my impression is that most hunters today are unwilling to walk very far. How will they get their ATVs, 4WDs or horses over the corners? Maybe Cabela's will start selling portable bridges?
C.G.B.

quote:

Originally posted by cgbach:
Theoretically this should open up a bunch of land but my impression is that most hunters today are unwilling to walk very far. How will they get their ATVs, 4WDs or horses over the corners? Maybe Cabela's will start selling portable bridges?
C.G.B.

You make a valid point. It has the potential to help those of us who don't mind a bit of a walk though.

Anytime there is more access to public land. That is a good thing. And as far as the ladder that goes across that corner, count me in. Some kind of game cart ladder combo might be the way to go.

Those ranch and land owners who wants to keep us riff raff out will try anything and everything under this sun through their high price counselors
It’s long and windy road

The next step for the land owner is a hearing before the all the 10th circuit judges.

Then up to the supreme court.

Lots of time and money.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Those ranch and land owners who wants to keep us riff raff out will try anything and everything under this sun through their high price counselors
It’s long and windy road

Merna...

Potentially this has far greater ramifications than just accessing public land. Unless a person can transform themselves into a 2 dimensional object some part of their body will cross over the private land. I believe (could be wrong?) that the FAA decided long ago that private property rights (for overflights) quit at 500' above the ground. Below that, who knows. Lots of fights here in the west over floating over private land while rafting, fishing, etc. This could be an interesting court fight. The courts here in Colorado have carefully ducked taking on this issue.
C.G.B.

quote:

. Unless a person can transform themselves into a 2 dimensional object some part of their body will cross over the private land

Read the ruling and you will inform your self

Check out 'United states v. Causby'. In part Justice Douglas said "... "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." He also said that there are limits.
If the ranches presses the issue it could be interesting. If someone is on public land a mile away can he fly his drone over my yard 6' off the ground?
C.G.B.

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:
This a landmark decision. I suspect it will be further challenged and may be pushed to the Supreme Court (if they agree to hear it). Meanwhile, it has the potential to significantly change the hunting landscape.

The only place left to go is to the S. Ct. I do not think the S. Ct., will touch it.

I am happy with it. I would need to read the actual case to real know what it means.

As for flying the drone 6 feet off the ground, Probably would be a trespass. However, in KY the act of throwing an object into another’s property is not a criminal trespass.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
The next step for the land owner is a hearing before the all the 10th circuit judges.

Then up to the supreme court.

Lots of time and money.

That is called a en banc hearing, and it is grace and not a right.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:
This a landmark decision. I suspect it will be further challenged and may be pushed to the Supreme Court (if they agree to hear it). Meanwhile, it has the potential to significantly change the hunting landscape.

The only place left to go is to the S. Ct. I do not think the S. Ct., will touch it.

I am happy with it. I would need to read the actual case to real know what it means.

As for flying the drone 6 feet off the ground, Probably would be a trespass. However, in KY the act of throwing an object into another’s property is not a criminal trespass.

So if you unload a dump truck full of garbage onto someone else's property in KY it's not a crime?

the next step besides securing this judgement is going to be securing public land. when the government wants to transfer it to the states it wouldn't matter that corner crossing from us govt land to us govt land is legal if they no longer own the land

This whole thingy is about control plain and simple and I do understand both sides
This will take some concessions on both sides but how is beyond me

Maybe we can get the Feds and the states to install permeant corner crossing ladders.

Wouldn't easements be reasonable?
If I understand correctly, in Alaska navigable water opens public access to the high water mark.

Public roads have easements on private property as does public utilities.

I can understand wanting to keep exclusive land from those deemed excludable, but I'd feel pretty stupid trying to insist treading on the corner of my private property in order to access more public property was some great outrage.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Wouldn't easements be reasonable?
If I understand correctly, in Alaska navigable water opens public access to the high water mark.

Public roads have easements on private property as does public utilities.

I can understand wanting to keep exclusive land from those deemed excludable, but I'd feel pretty stupid trying to insist treading on the corner of my private property in order to access more public property was some great outrage.

Until you have dealt with some of these land holders you have no clue how nasty and petty they can be.

They absolutely work very hard at keeping the public lands off limits if they can.

They see these blocks are theirs and theirs to control.

A lot well not sell easements or grant easements.

As seen here they will spend huge amounts of money to stop public use of public land.

The video below has a good explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...dWJzY3JpYmVycw%3D%3D