from Hacker News

The Wyoming corner crossing case

by wlkr on 12/5/22, 1:43 AM with 74 comments

  • by Kon-Peki on 12/5/22, 2:23 AM

    This is fascinating :)

    > North and South Dakota define section lines as a public right of way, which seems to allow corner crossing or at least access to landlocked public lands.

    Here in Illinois, my rear property line is a section line, and a neighbor down the street has the intersection of that section line with another; interestingly it is not on his property line (this is land that was sold by the federal government in 40 acre square quarters of a quarter, but farmers had subdivided and consolidated things over the years). But anyway, in his yard is a stone survey marker showing the intersection point, and it has "ROW" engraved on it. It lends credence to this concept being common historically.

  • by davidw on 12/5/22, 3:21 AM

    That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m/...

  • by entrylevel on 12/5/22, 3:13 AM

    I'm really surprised that this hasn't been settled. It seems unjust that you can surround a piece of public land--or someone else's land--with your private land and deny access to it.

    I remember Disney was successfully sued to allow access for the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek resort because Disney owned all the land that would provide access to it and didn't want to allow it.

  • by IncRnd on 12/5/22, 4:41 AM

    Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this.

      What does the law say with regard to corner crossing?

  There is no specific state or federal
  laws regarding corner crossings. Corner
  crossings in the checkerboard land pattern
  area or elsewhere are not considered legal
  public access.
    [1] https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Prog...

  • by exhilaration on 12/5/22, 3:46 AM

    Previously discussed (last week): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33753467

  • by saboot on 12/5/22, 3:00 AM

    Id like to know why specifically the officers changed their mind the third time.

    I can easily take a guess for the reason though.

  • by rippercushions on 12/5/22, 4:17 AM

    > The federal government regulates airspace 500 feet and above the land surface, leaving the states to decide what happens below. Wyoming statute 10-4-302 states that ownership of the space above private land is vested in the owners below, subject to the right of flight.

    So if you have a FAA-approved helicopter/giant drone/equivalent and comply with their regulations, you can legally hop from one checkerboard to another, as long as each hop goes above 500 feet? (Assuming that national park regulations allow you to land on the ground with your aircraft, which is sadly probably not the case.)

  • by failbuffer on 12/5/22, 3:01 AM

    De minimis non curat lex - the law does not deal in trifles. Unless a multi-millionaire pharmaceutical businessman wants to make life difficult for someone, apparently.

    It's silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.

  • by mattlondon on 12/5/22, 5:56 AM

    Why don't the land owners just put up a fence if they are so worried? Doesn't need to go the whole length, just like 1 or 2 meters at the corners, then there is no argument about if someone's shoulders went on your land or not.

  • by GauntletWizard on 12/5/22, 2:41 AM

    This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it's laughable that it's made it this far. Someone can't block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.

  • by josh_fyi on 12/5/22, 7:53 AM

    Why don't private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner?

    I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.

  • by sc68cal on 12/5/22, 2:47 AM

    This is basically the same issue as public access to California beaches, where wealthy landowners attempt to block public access to the commons and turn it into private property.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...

  • by pintxo on 12/5/22, 9:57 AM

    Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing?

    As obviously (on flat land without obstacles) one can step from one square into the diagonal square without setting foot on either the adjacent squares.

  • by PostOnce on 12/5/22, 2:51 AM

    In some countries, it's not a problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

  • by twelve40 on 12/5/22, 4:23 AM

    That pharma guy is an unbelievable douchebag. Investing his own, his crew's and the cops time (they have nothing better to do?) into ... what exactly?

  • by boltzmann-brain on 12/5/22, 1:44 AM

    > The legality of stepping from one public parcel to another across a shared corner is still a legal gray area

  • by chrisbrandow on 12/5/22, 6:05 AM

    Idiotic. Profoundly stupid.

  • by fastball on 12/5/22, 4:18 AM

    Why are these public land parcels in a checkerboard anyway? Doesn't it make way more sense to have continuous pieces of land for administration / etc?