In a decision that has drawn nationwide attention, a U.S. federal court has ruled in favor of public land “Corner Crossers” in a contentious lawsuit. The ruling could represent a turning point in the discourse surrounding private property rights versus access to public lands. The issue is important to RVers who boondock and those who hike, hunt, fish, and recreate on the Mountain West public lands.
Page Contents
What Are “Corner Crossers”?
“Corner Crossers” are people who cross (i.e., step across) from one parcel of public land to another at a joint corner, ostensibly not trespassing onto the adjoining private lands. This type of access is a point of contention with landowners who argue it infringes upon their property rights.
The Wyoming case hinged on the interpretation of property laws dating back centuries and the legal delineation of public and private lands. “Corner Crossing” supporters contended that their actions are within the law if no part of the private land is being encroached upon.
Trespassing in the air?
The court, examining the nature of property boundaries and the rights of citizens to access public lands, agreed with this argument. The ruling stated that “Corner Crossers” are not violating property laws as they do not physically trespass onto private property.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled that the defendants, Bradly Cape, Zachary Smith, Phillip Yoemens, and John Slowensky, did not trespass when, in 2020 and 2021, they crossed and passed through the private airspace of Elk Mountain Ranch in southern Wyoming while hunting. The ranch owner, Fred Eshelman, argued that the hunters trespassed through the airspace of his property and claimed the hunters caused more than $7 million in damages, even though the men never stepped foot on his property.
“The private landowner is entitled to protect privately-owned land from intrusion to the surface and privately-owned property from damage while the public is entitled to a reasonable way of passage to access public land,” Skavdahl wrote. “The private landowner must suffer the temporary incursion into a minimal portion of its airspace while the corner crosser must take pains to avoid touching private land.”
Probably not the last word
While it appears legally sound, this decision has elicited varied reactions. Many “Corner Crossers” celebrate its victory for public land access and defense against privatization. Meanwhile, many private landowners are concerned that the ruling could lead to increased trespassing and property rights violations.
Critics argue that the ruling could lead to encroachments, de facto easements, and misuse of private property under the guise of “Corner Crossing.” They believe stricter regulations should be in place to maintain the sanctity of private property boundaries.
The court’s ruling holds precedence for now. It marks a crucial moment in the dialogue between public access and private property rights, setting a precedent for future legal proceedings—but will almost certainly head to appeal in the U.S. Federal Court for the Tenth Circuit in Denver.
Huge swaths of “land locked” public lands
For an idea of the scope of the issue, there are 8.3 million acres of public land “locked” by a patchwork of private and public lands.
According to the exploration technology company onX Maps, based in Missoula, MT:
Over the past two centuries, legislation, random chance, and a variety of land deals have left the American West with a patchwork landscape of public and private land. Within the patchwork lie swaths of alternating sections of public and private land, like the squares of a checkerboard. At every point where four squares meet, there is a property corner ripe for controversy. With the issue of corner-crossing in the news again, we decided to leverage our strengths and drill down on the data. What we discovered was shocking in its scope.
-
-
- Using onX mapping technology, we identified 8.3 million acres of corner-locked lands—more than half of the West’s total landlocked area.
- 27,120 land-locking corners exist in the West.
- No law exists that specifically outlaws corner-crossing, but various attempts to make it either definitively legal or illegal have thus far failed.
- Property owners have valid concerns, and any solution to the problem must address landowner needs.
-
The schism between private landowners and those seeking access to public lands will continue. It will take more legal wrangling and likely legislation to attain an equable solution. A solution might be purchasing private lands, easements, or a combination of both. Another solution would be for the government entities holding title to the landlocked public parcels to trade or liquidate the properties. The result of the anticipated appeal in the Elk Mountain Ranch “Corner Crossing” case could provide a preview of what happens next.
##RVT1108b
Since when do landowners own the airspace above their land?
Since the beginning of private property.
$7 million in damages???? Or was the legal fees his lawyer friends racked up?
I don’t see a need for people to be able to access every inch of public land. The BLM parcels have been there for a lot of years in the checkerboard pattern; it’s nothing new. The wildlife could use a break. The way many people think, it starts with air access, then they’ll be trespassing on the ground which is bad enough already. Many hunters think it’s their God given right to traipse around on private property and seem to have the attitude that people shouldn’t own anything and don’t have any rights. If they want to hunt that bad, go buy some property somewhere. It is absurd to have to meet idiots on your property who are carrying guns or crossbows. Flying over is just as bad, and they aren’t supposed to hunt from the air. It sure doesn’t appear to be sporting. Give an inch, they’ll take a mile. Additionally, irresponsible campers are causing enough fires in the woods and destroying millions of acres of trees plus wildlife plus homes without making that worse also.
It should be law that a government cannot purchase land without an easement or other legal access point sufficient to allow reasonable passage. Government owned “landlocked” parcels should just never exist!
What private landowner with a brain purchases land they want to use but that they have no access to? Gov’t needs to apply the same thinking.
Spike, the error here is, “Gov’t needs to apply the same thinking.” It seems to me that not much “thinking” goes into any government planning. Especially nowadays.
What makes you think the landowners didn’t buy the land knowing they would have access on the public land and therefore be able to keep people off their private little plot ?
In most cases, the government didn’t purchase the land (except maybe from Napoleon in 1804) it was always government land and the private land was homesteaded or purchased from the government. I’m not a real estate attorney, but it seems to me there is an implied right of access to any property cut off from public access.
Might want to apply some thinking by learning some history here. Much of the checkerboard pattern is due to land grants to railroads in the 1800’s. In return for building the rail line, the RR was given alternating sections 20-40 miles of either side of the rail line. The land the federal govt retained was opened to homesteading and the land to the RR was generally sold by the RR. Much of the checkerboard lies in mountainous or desert regions that no one wanted to homestead. The government didn’t purchase any of that land.
It would be nice if Randall Brink put as much effort into educating readers about history as he does in educating us how to strip mine for gold.
Hi, Truffy. Personally, I don’t think studying history sounds like a very fun activity for RVers like panning for gold does. Just sayin’.🙄 Have a good day. 🙂 –Diane at RVtravel.com
Maybe some don’t care about history, but I think Truffy was trying to show why it is to people who maybe think like another guy who said it shouldn’t be done that way; it probably isn’t now. I am where my parents homesteaded just down the creek from my grandparents and great grands also homesteaded. None of them homesteaded here to get private access to BLM land as someone suggested. It is simply where they ended up when no one else was around. I just like being where we were all raised, it’s home back into the 1800s. Trespassers and thieves are definitely a problem. We pay ridiculous amounts of property taxes to support others and do not pay all that to benefit trespassers–hopefully. People these days just don’t respect others property.
Well said
Thanks for all of the interesting info, Lorelei. That’s cool that your property has been in your family for so long.👍 Like Randall replied to Truffy, the article was about a lawsuit, not a history lesson. Have a great day. 😀 –Diane at RVtravel.com
I still don’t see an explanation as a lesson, or my post either. Me thinks some folks are overly defensive. Nothing wrong with history, it should or could help people understand landowner concerns. The example is hunters. I’m not sure what that has to do with camping and RV travel, unless the hunters are/were also camping and RVing, but it seemed they were flying in. Here, they would have to parachute in and probably get hung up in trees. Many hunters don’t care where they are shooting or at what, which I have learned by experience.
I certainly agree that there’s nothing wrong with history, and hopefully learning from it. I agree with what you’re saying, Lorelei. I just don’t know how to express it as well as you and some others do. My old brain just doesn’t always grasp things as well as it used to, especially after proofreading all day with way too little sleep the night before. Sorry. Have a good night. 🙂 –Diane at Rvtravel.com
The article is about a lawsuit affecting access to public lands, not a history lesson.
Railroads got every other section of land to “encourage” development. Then they sold it.