BLM Corner Locked Lands

[RicInOR]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...es-against-corner-crossing-hunters/ar-AAZZ54u

"A Carbon County Circuit Court jury in April found them not guilty of criminal trespass and trespassing to hunt, misdemeanor charges filed after their 2021 trip to Wyoming."


"The cases involving Missouri hunters Phillip Yeomans, Bradly Cape, John Slowensky and Zachary Smith could have implications for accessing an estimated 8.3 million acres of public land across the West, 2.44 million in Wyoming alone. That's the acreage estimated to be "corner locked" by any interpretation that corner crossing is illegal."

"Eshelman's civil suit claims the hunters trespassed because they violated his airspace, a dimension from which he asserts he may exclude others."

Eshelman put up a "fence" blocking the corner to corner path.

"The hunters fashioned, brought and used a ladder to climb over the obstruction to pass from one section of BLM land to another. They hunted on public land in the area, corner crossing to reach hundreds of acres where they killed elk and a deer."

Read More

 

[Ura-Ki]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...es-against-corner-crossing-hunters/ar-AAZZ54u

"A Carbon County Circuit Court jury in April found them not guilty of criminal trespass and trespassing to hunt, misdemeanor charges filed after their 2021 trip to Wyoming."


"The cases involving Missouri hunters Phillip Yeomans, Bradly Cape, John Slowensky and Zachary Smith could have implications for accessing an estimated 8.3 million acres of public land across the West, 2.44 million in Wyoming alone. That's the acreage estimated to be "corner locked" by any interpretation that corner crossing is illegal."

"Eshelman's civil suit claims the hunters trespassed because they violated his airspace, a dimension from which he asserts he may exclude others."

Eshelman put up a "fence" blocking the corner to corner path.

"The hunters fashioned, brought and used a ladder to climb over the obstruction to pass from one section of BLM land to another. They hunted on public land in the area, corner crossing to reach hundreds of acres where they killed elk and a deer."

That Judge is WAY outta his league, only the FAA can define airspace, and it's restrictions, further I looked and there are not, nor have there ever been NOTOMS or TFR's of the airspace in question, so that judge is gonna get his arse handed to him by the feds, any good lawyer should be able to get this tossed, but if not, a quick call to the local FAA agent should clear it right quick and in a hurry like!

 

[Yarome]

That's rediculous. It is long an undisputed and upheld fact that property ownership does not include any airspace. All airspace is public domain and only regulated by appropriate federal agencies for safety. That said, there are exclusion zones, but again, that is limited, determined by law, and again, for safety and/or national security.

There is also no such law as "arial trespass" pertaining to any privately owned domain.

Take note: If you shoot or smack a drone while it is passing over your property.... YOU get nailed for destruction of private property.

 

[Provincial]

This would only apply to places where two BLM parcels share a corner. Arguably, the two parcels touch each other at the corner (usually identified by a survey marker) and also the other two parcels of private land. Putting a fence over the stake does not negate the contact between the two parcels.

This is a problem where the BLM is in control of public land that was laid out in a "checkerboard", like the Oregon & California Railroad (O&C) lands that the State of Oregon foolishly turned over to the Federal government to manage for timber production. Those are no longer producing revenue for Oregon counties, as agreed, but have become de facto wildlife refuges that harbor species whose protections extend over the surrounding private lands, destroying much of their ability to produce income for the private owners. I look at them as cancer cells.

Actually, the property owner can put up a fence on the boundary of his property. It could not extend to the center of the survey marker, but it could be placed within a fraction of an inch from there. If such fences were placed on the private parcels, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to cross on foot without touching the fences, and therefore "trespassing." I think this is where the ladder comes in. The hunters avoided contacting the fence, and the fact that the ladder extended over part of the private property is not actionable.

The solution is for the fence to be high enough at the corners to make the ladder idea impractical.

 

[RicInOR]

The solution is for the fence to be high enough at the corners to make the ladder idea impractical.

What you are saying is that BLM lands should be off limits.

~" 8.3 million acres of public land across the West,"


Access to public lands is a long standing issue, problem.


I am glad Oregon made beaches all required to be accessible. There are places in CA where the locals put up fences and other security measures to block access.

 

[Provincial]

You put words in my mouth. I didn't make a statement about access, other than that the landowner's attempt to block access was ineffective.

You can access BLM checkerboards if one of the connected parcels has public access, and once on BLM land, stay on BLM land. Too many people think (or just claim) that they have a right to cross private land to access public land, and that is untrue. It is just like someone cutting across your lot in town to get from one street to another. Both streets are public right-of-ways, but your lot is private, and the public has no right to cross it.

 

[DirectDrive]

What you are saying is that BLM lands should be off limits.

~" 8.3 million acres of public land across the West,"


Access to public lands is a long standing issue, problem.


I am glad Oregon made beaches all required to be accessible. There are places in CA where the locals put up fences and other security measures to block access.

You can thank Governor Tom McCall for that.

 

[DirectDrive]

If it's public land, it should have an easement to allow public access.

 

[Bobbygun]

Interesting. I wonder how high the private property owner's air space extends. I see hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel where guys access public land via helicopter. Theoretically, if property lines extended forever upward into air space, they would still have the same limitations as five feet above the ground (or 1 inch) and be unable to access the property with a helicopter.

These types of disputes can get very murky. Much like water access for swimming or fishing when it runs through private property and determining what is "navigable" water. I think the winner in such disputes is usually the one who can afford the best attorneys - usually not the little guy.

ETA - That "navigable" water clause may just be an Oregon thing. I don't know about other states.

 

[elsie]

That Judge is WAY outta his league, only the FAA can define airspace, and it's restrictions, further I looked and there are not, nor have there ever been NOTOMS or TFR's of the airspace in question, so that judge is gonna get his arse handed to him by the feds, any good lawyer should be able to get this tossed, but if not, a quick call to the local FAA agent should clear it right quick and in a hurry like!

Actually a certain amount of airspace over the property is included with ownership of the property. Otherwise your neighbors could build a cantilever over the top of your house without your consent. Before commercial air travel, common law did provide that property went up forever. I believe now that is limited to 500 feet under federal mandate. Between 0 and 500 though is probably up to the state, if they even bother. References seem ... indistinct.

elsie

 

[Ura-Ki]

Actually a certain amount of airspace over the property is included with ownership of the property. Otherwise your neighbors could build a cantilever over the top of your house without your consent. Before commercial air travel, common law did provide that property went up forever. I believe now that is limited to 500 feet under federal mandate. Between 0 and 500 though is probably up to the state, if they even bother. References seem ... indistinct.

elsie

If that were true, it would be required by law to be posed as well as charted, and there are very few charted restrictions of private or commercial airspace!
My system will not allow me to link my Nav Charts, but I could show you how it works and if there were any restrictions, which there very very few! There is also the Altitude issue, which isn't a fed mandate only an advisory for general flight ops! You can read through the General Aviation Bush Pilots Guide to find all the specifics if you wanted, it's all listed there!

Edit:
As long as I do NOT land, as touch any part of my aircraft in private property they cannot charge me with Trespass, though they might be pissed and file a complaint with the FAA, I'm perfectly legal to operate my aircraft in a safe manor over private property, again, as long as I do not attempt to land, unless I have a legit emergency!

 

[Yarome]

Actually a certain amount of airspace over the property is included with ownership of the property. Otherwise your neighbors could build a cantilever over the top of your house without your consent. Before commercial air travel, common law did provide that property went up forever. I believe now that is limited to 500 feet under federal mandate. Between 0 and 500 though is probably up to the state, if they even bother. References seem ... indistinct.

elsie

No airspace is included with ownership of a property.

A canitlever would be tied terrestrially and be considered a property encroachment if it extends beyond your property line. It has nothing to do with aerial ownership.

Most all airspace is public domain. The 0-500 is (with exceptions) free to traverse with some limitations on allowed type. Ie., generally speaking, although not exclusively, aircraft are forbidden to fly below 500ft except when required for take off or landing. It's more complicted than that, but just an example of "standardized" airspace rules. 500+ is regluated airspace. Kind of like a highway. It is public domain, but some rules and regulations apply.

 

[Ura-Ki]

With Exceptions!

FAR 91.119 Covers Minimum Safe Altitudes

The FAA covers minimum safe altitudes in 14 CFR 91.119. focus is on airplanes because helicopters have entirely separate minimum altitude regulations.

Keep in mind, the restrictions listed below do not apply when low altitude flight is "necessary for takeoff or landing, Or conducting Inspection passes with intent to land" That's one reason why you can fly so low over highways, roads, and houses during takeoff and landing.

Restrictions do not apply to low altitude "Bush" flying, ( in aircraft equipped to do so) as it is assumed all operations under 500 feet AGL are "Inspection Passes" and generally accepted by the FAA as regular flight operations, with the exceptions for emergency landings or engine out procedures.

Also,

"Other Than A Congested Area" (91.119-c)

If you're flying over a depopulated area, like open fields or open water, the FAA is a little more lenient. Here's what 91.119(c) says about "other than congested areas:"

"An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
This one is pretty self-explanatory. And while you might be thinking, "who's going to use a sky-ruler to measure my distance," the FAA has brought enforcement action against pilots for clearly breaking this regulation.

 

[elsie]

Like I said, references were indistinct and no set distance has been set except for the FAA over populated areas. And as you've shown, in depopulated areas the rules are a little more loose. Generally it is not considered a trespass unless there is an interference. This site has some reference to case law: https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-property/ and is mainly concerning aerial vehicles. But this case is about people on foot who crossed over "airspace" of private property.

Personally, I think it's BS as the hunters made every attempt to be minimally invasive.

elsie

 

[User 1234]

Airspace for aviation purposes is a different topic than air rights over real property.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I think what the court is going to have to square with is their interpretation is based on FAA drone ( and not civil aircraft) operations limits over private property and trying to use that, something the FAA have adjusted in response to the proliferation of small drones and amature users! Basically they are trying to interpret one in place of the other!

 

[Yarome]

Personally, I think it's BS as the hunters made every attempt to be minimally invasive.

And not to forget... the biggest BS of the whole thing is some jack-hole property owner trying to unlawfully limit the public from access to public lands. That's like calling the cops on a guy for stealing your crack, IMHO.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Edit, double tap!

 

[Yarome]

I think what the court is going to have to square with is their interpretation is based on FAA drone ( and not civil aircraft) operations limits over private property and trying to use that, something the FAA have adjusted in response to the proliferation of small drones and amature users! Basically they are trying to interpret one in place of the other!

There is still no aerial trespass on the law books. About as close as it comes is aerial loitering with malicious or criminal intent, AFAIK. That's very interpretive though.

I dunno about all states aerial statutes, but for Oregon, anyway

 

[ColeInOregon]

A little more background on the case:

Wyoming Corner Crossing Case Deepens with New Charges and Civil Lawsuit

Editor’s note: In October 2021, four Missourians hunting in Wyoming were cited for criminal trespass after “corner crossing” from one square parcel of public land to another across adjoining corners—presenting an opportunity to test an infamously murky legal issue. This article is the third...

www.themeateater.com

I grew up in Wyoming, not very far from where this is all playing out, access to public lands in this area are diminishing evey year. This not an anti wealth comment but wealthy people are buying lands that surround public lands and limiting/blocking access to those lands, essentially adding land to theirs that we the tax payers pay for, and it is my belief that this is not right. There is another case that played out in the area a number of years ago where a man landed a para sail on land locked public lands, I am not finding anything on the court case but here is this:

12ft |

12ft.io