https://archive.today/FC4AJ

Corner crossing seems like something that could be solved by saying "where two corners meet there must be an easement xx meters wide to allow the public to cross". I can't imagine any reason why the private landowner should be allowed to put up fencing and signs that block the corner.

In cases where the only way to access a parcel of public land is through private land then an easement should be created. If a road or trail can't be built for whatever reason then a sign with an arrow should be the rule.

I live in Utah, where 54% of the state is public land. San Juan County is 94% public land.

It's cool because you got just a few hours south of the Wasatch Front, where 92% of Utahns live, on state route 29, and you see beautiful vistas of practically untouched territory.

The truth is public land is generally unreachable because there are no roads out there. Sure there are lots of roads into BLM land but there's just lots and lots of BLM land and they can't build roads into all of it on their current budget. Besides, usually the roads are gravel and of questionable maintenance.

this is very common in the west. Its one of several ways to "own" more property than you paid for. If your property completely encloses 1000 acres of public land, that land is as good as yours (with the exception of building things, but many of the property owners in these cases are taking people hunting on the land, so no permanant structures would be built anyway.) Another common thing is land leases. I don't know how many ranches I've seen for sale around here (NM) that state something like 1000 acres, but when you look closer, its 200 acres, with a BLM lease on the other 800 acres. That doesn't grant them exclusive use of the land (to the best of my knowledge), but they frequently act like it does--placing "no tresspassing" signs, confronting people, arguing its their land. (and while you are paying for those leases, it is CHEAP. something like $2 per acre per year.

As someone who has grown up with "Freedom to roam"[0] laws, it seems so weird that you would need to keep track of who owns the land where you are hiking. (To be fair you can't just hunt wherever you want in Sweden either.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden

The kicker in the article that "nobody is going to grant access out of the goodness of their heart," is absolutely untrue. There are fox hunts and hikes in my area where landowners grant access for this reason. What has done the most harm is insurance and the risk of liability and litigation from people injuring themselves on your land, and that has made landowners become very aggressive about trespassers, as it just takes one "slippin' jimmy" scammer (like the many auto insurance collision scammers already out there) to put their home at risk and cost them a significant settlement. That liability makes any trespassing at all a present and reckless threat against your home.

Public land is lovely until you have vagrancy problems as well. I live around conservation land near a major suburb and the number of loiterers, trespassers, and poachers you get is way more than you expect. When you are close to the city, the relative isolation becomes a real home invasion risk. Privacy and respect for property and boundaries is a very regional value, and attitudes against something as obvious as littering just aren't universal either. The corner crossing case in the article where there is some tendentiously legal loophole is really an example of people lacking respect for property and going where they explicitly aren't welcome. Nobody has a problem with people coming to appreciate nearby public land, but use and abuse of it without any value or contribution to the surrounding community is a problem. Instagram has become an utter cancer that way, where people drive into your driveway to take a picture, and then you get 10 others showing up because they want the same location. Someone who demonstrates that lack of respect for privacy and property should be incentivized to do so with whatever imposed cost is adequate, imo.

A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

My backyard borders on about 1/2 acre of green space. Technically it is public land, but it is inaccessible unless you cross my property or parachute in. The yard is fenced on all sides (to keep our golden retriever in), except the green space side. So, someone would have to come over the fence. I wonder how much pubic land like this probably isn’t included in the app mentioned in the article.

Really shortsided position by the land owner, and I have no doubt he’ll end up with far less rights than he started by raking people over the coals.

Pulling straight from Franklin Covey’s seven habits: think win-win. Simply allowing people to cross at the corner and encouraging them to do so by building a path works keeps them off his land and in public areas. Hell even charge them a reasonable fee for the crossing to keep it from becoming a free for all!

But the no compromise, ‘7 million airspace violation’ position will lose badly in the long term, even if he can convince if he can convince a few local juries for a few short sighted temporary wins. Worst case scenario is the federal government decides that there has to be land access and forces a road onto his private property. Now _that_ would suck.

It'd be interesting to know what tech stack OnX is using to achieve their outcomes. Looks pretty slick!

Looking around my city in the onX app makes me really sad. So many historic trails have been sold to investors and are now being blocked/developed…

> Mr. Eshelman ... Discussing the case in an email statement to The Wall Street Journal this month, he said “forcible trespass” was a safety issue and could affect the property value.

Clearly the property, trying to hem in public land, was over-valued.

The public should have access through private land to get to public land this whole thing with land ownership making money off of public land is a crock and if that’s the case the public should change the land owners for taking animals off that public land that have no access to the public

In many places, the land between high tide and low tide is public no matter what the beachfront property owner says. That doesn't stop them from making it very difficult for the public to access.

Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians

Does anyone know if I could go look up ownership of parcels of land in my city? I don’t really need a hiking map, I was just wondering if there was a government database or something where I could look up who owned what.

This is insane. Nobody should be allowed to block access like that. The land owner was harassing these men while they were on public land and is continuing to harass them using a court. The landowner should be in prison.

In countries which already have advanced, digital, unified land record systems, "illuminating public land" would be a relatively simple database instruction.

What an amazingly petty thing to put signs like that.

Blocking access to public land is definitely bad. But am I the only one who's first reaction is "Fuck hunters" anyway?