Corner crossing case

[RockyMtnMT]

Before air travel land ownership was from the center of the earth to the heavens. Then comes mineral rights and what is considered legal airspace. I don't remember what that elevation is, but my recollection is there is a number. Prior to this ruling those land owners could not stop someone from using a helicopter to access public land locked behind theirs. I'm guessing that now with this ruling there will be a change in how high the landowner controls above his property in certain locations.

Road access to land locked public land is going to be a separate issue. I think.

 

[MtPockets]

Think about who you vote for and if you want your next generation to grow up in the outdoors or in front of a video game.

I agree 100% with everything else you said, but this one comment I do not.
Which side do you think is going to give you that access?
I'd say neither one.
The one side doesnt want us hunting, the other side is heavily invested in the Ag community.

I 1000% agree that all public land should have access.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I agree 100% with everything else you said, but this one comment I do not.
Which side do you think is going to give you that access?
I'd say neither one.
The one side doesnt want us hunting, the other side is heavily invested in the Ag community.

I 1000% agree that all public land should have access.

I'm kinda there. I think one side looks at public land as government land that should be kept from human activity in order to keep it "wild". An extension of wilderness but without a trail system. The other side looks at public land as a resource that should be used to benefit society through utilization of natural resources and accessed by the public for recreational and economic opportunity.

 

[Wedgy]

I got a taste of this last year in Colorado, it was the first time I had ever heard of it. Had to walk an additional 2.5 miles in and then back out with an elk. Landowner was watching our headlamps all the way out.

 

[PBramble]

I'm kinda there. I think one side looks at public land as government land that should be kept from human activity in order to keep it "wild". An extension of wilderness but without a trail system. The other side looks at public land as a resource that should be used to benefit society through utilization of natural resources and accessed by the public for recreational and economic opportunity.

The thing is it isn't government land. It public land. government land is a entirely different category.

 

[PBramble]

Before air travel land ownership was from the center of the earth to the heavens. Then comes mineral rights and what is considered legal airspace. I don't remember what that elevation is, but my recollection is there is a number. Prior to this ruling those land owners could not stop someone from using a helicopter to access public land locked behind theirs. I'm guessing that now with this ruling there will be a change in how high the landowner controls above his property in certain locations.

Road access to land locked public land is going to be a separate issue. I think.

FAA controls 500 feet and up. Most states only allow owner airspace rights as high as they can build. It allows for towers and windmills. Anything not considered reasonable is not allowed.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

The thing is it isn't government land. It public land. government land is a entirely different category.

That was my point. The gov is owned by the people not the other way around.

 

[GoosePilot]

FAA controls 500 feet and up. Most states only allow owner airspace rights as high as they can build. It allows for towers and windmills. Anything not considered reasonable is not allowed.

Faa controls all airspace as far as aviation activities are concerned. Most instances aircraft must maintain 500ft from people or structures. However there are exceptions to that rule. For example most but not all instances involving ag aviation work.

Land owners don't have any real airspace ownership as far as I'm aware.

 

[PBramble]

Faa controls all airspace as far as aviation activities are concerned. Most instances aircraft must maintain 500ft from people or structures. However there are exceptions to that rule. For example most but not all instances involving ag aviation work.

Land owners don't have any real airspace ownership as far as I'm aware.

Varies from state to state unfortunately. Here in Oklahoma, you own to 400 feet. If someone flies a drone over your property, they can be charged with trespassing. In addition, it is the law that you may knock a drone out of the air over your property here too. FAA be damned.

 

[GoosePilot]

Varies from state to state unfortunately. Here in Oklahoma, you own to 400 feet. If someone flies a drone over your property, they can be charged with trespassing. In addition, it is the law that you may knock a drone out of the air over your property here too. FAA be damned.

Lol. Well go ahead and do it and let us know how the feds respond.

 

[Muddyboots]

We are PUBLIC LAND OWNERS no different than private land owners. Why should our rights to use be any different? IMO if public land is not accessible to ALL PUBLIC LAND OWNERS then nobody uses it. These land owners have become to believe these landlocked public lands are theirs to keep "private" for own personal use.

!

 

[338 dude]

the land owner who was suing them actually said they should use a plane or a helicopter to access the land. Isn't that the same airspace? He a moron.

I watched an episode of fresh tracks with Randy Newburgh where he took a nice elk on landlocked public land by accessing it with a helicopter he says, looking at the whole hunt the chopper wasn't really that expensive. Plus they flew him and his elk out at the end of the hunt.

 

[GoosePilot]

In SD corner crossing is legal as sd has right of way on every section. I think the problem comes mainly from the public "land owner" types that don't understand or respect the responsibilities that come with every day land ownership or understand what being neighborly is about. Not saying that there aren't a few cases of private land owners abusing their neighborliness. Often talking to the land owner is quite fruitful. But those that think they have the right to cut fences or leave gates open or drive vehicles across wherever is a real problem that puts all hunters access in jeopardy.

 

[LRNut]

My property in CO backs up to BLM and Forest Service land; my neighbors do not allow public access but there is access on the north side about 2 miles from my house but no motorized vehicle access period. The only time I ever see anyone back there are hunters who ignore the "No Motorized Vehicles Past This Point" sign. A friend of mine actually cuts the gas lines of ORVs he finds in areas where there is no motorized vehicle access.

Why should I have to grant an easement to allow access? You are free to enter as long as you walk and use the access 2 miles north.