For millionaire and four hunters, a wild Western lawsuit over public land: The ruling on an invisible corner in Elk Mountain, Wyo., could determine how much private property rights limit public access (wapo.st)

submitted 6 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Four Missouri elk hunters used [a stepladder] to climb over an invisible corner from one parcel of Bureau of Land Management terrain to another. They never touched a toe on two adjacent swaths of private property marked by “No Trespassing” signs.

But to the owner of that property, a North Carolina multimillionaire whose portfolio includes 22,000 acres of this game-rich mountain, the hunters’ aerial corner-cross was trespassing all the same. Whether he is correct — and the extent to which private property rights can thwart the public’s ability to access its land on thousands of similar corners — is now being weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago

So for the record this is actually a HUGE problem in the US. Land is sold in grids and what large land owners are doing is just buying the land in a checker pattern; they can then refuse public access to the half of that land they don't even own by accusing people of tresspassing for crossing the corners. The result is huge land owners getting exclusive use of public land for free, and yes they do actually use that whole 50% of the land they haven't even paid for.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

A full on right to roam is probably a bit extreme, but I could see a minimal right of way being required around public lands.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It works fine in Scotland, buffalo buffalo buffalo it just has exceptions for, well its a bit undefined but it basically means peoples gardens, industrial estates, fields with delicate crops. I think the best way to describe it is you can go anywhere that hasn't been actively and greatly transformed for private use.

[-] Jasonw911@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Whats the "buffalo buffalo buffalo " thing? I've seen it a couple times. Messing with data scrapers?

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Thats exactly the buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo reason. When placed right humans can also just skip over it very easily.

[-] Jasonw911@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I figured. Thanks!

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago

Fuck private property. Imagine "owning" 22k acres of the Earth that you do nothing with and the get pissy when people crossed it. Owning land is starting to become this dated concept as the population grows and the available land on Earth doesn't.

[+] Dkarma@lemmy.world -24 points 6 days ago

These statements show how you have no clue how real estate actually works.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago

Real estate as property exists to make guaranteed sustained use of a parcel of land for productivity - farming and housing are classic examples of this... there is a serious investment of labor to construct a house (especially in modern times) and agriculture is essentially a year long investment into food production. Without a guarantee to reap the benefits of that investment, nobody would be willing to invest in activating or improving the land.

There are a variety of other productive uses we've discovered as well - and some have moved from common use to exclusive use like ranching, mining, milling, and cooking - some of the new ones are oil/gas extraction, tourism and habitat preservation.

Mobile resources have always been quite complicated in this regard - deer migrate and preserving the ability to hunt requires a coordination of land beyond a single parcel. However, in this case the hunters weren't (or at least say they weren't hunting there) - it's reasonable for people to have a right of way and if the geography forces people onto private property to access public property that's an allowance that should be made.

[-] orrk@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

I think what the person you were replying to was trying to say was, that land is an investment platform, and nobody better touch his stuff, or he will enact capital punishment as judge jury and executioner

[-] Terrapinjoe@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

We need Right to Roam.

[-] Drusas@kbin.run 2 points 5 days ago

We need people to not be allowed to own 22,000 acres of land.

[-] Terrapinjoe@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Also good!

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024

65 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18059 readers

3089 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News