Corner crossing

[skiskiskiskiski]

https://www.themeateater.com/conserv...ege-harassment

Whatcha think?

[2FUNKY]

What do you think? It’s called corner hopping..

[skiskiskiskiski]

I think the selfish, rich land owners finally overplayed their hand.

No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, § 3, 23 Stat. 322.)

[old goat]

I don't know anything about Wyoming, hunting, or corner crossing--but the checkerboard is one of the dumber things America has done. Around here a lot of the forest is checkerboard and the local land trust spends a lot of money and effort to connect the public parcels to allow recreation. Why the US chose to give the railroads checkerboarded lands instead of contiguous parcels is beyond me.

[skiskiskiskiski]

I don't know anything about Wyoming, hunting, or corner crossing--but the checkerboard is one of the dumber things America has done. Around here a lot of the forest is checkerboard and the local land trust spends a lot of money and effort to connect the public parcels to allow recreation. Why the US chose to give the railroads checkerboarded lands instead of contiguous parcels is beyond me.

People didn't use land for recreation then. I dont think they had any reason to think this would be the issue that it is.

The feds also passed the law I quoted above in response to people trying to control land by locking it in, but apparently wealthy land owners forgot that law or think it doesn't apply to them.

Either way, its super interesting.

[old goat]

People didn't use land for recreation then.

Good point, unless you consider shooting Indians and buffalo as recreation.
Still doesn't make much sense.

[tellybele]

Check out Freedom to Roam. In MT corner hopping is illegal.

[ötzi]

In MT corner hopping is illegal.

Maybe not anymore if these guys win their case, the Federal statute would supersede any state law it appears to this non-lawyer.

[skiskiskiskiski]

Check out Freedom to Roam. In MT corner hopping is illegal.

Even that is up for debate because its illegal to block assess to public land and that's a federal law.

[skiskiskiskiski]

Interesting podcast about it..

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000553132684

[oldnew_guy]

People trying to prevent this are de facto trying to make the public checkerboard enclosed by their property their own. They are dicks and we should do everything possible to not allow them to win.

I get that there maybe is a more serious debate about access across a private property, but jumping from one checkerboard to another is a non issue to the private owner and the only motivation I can think of is to prevent access to the public land.

[bad dancer]

I don't know anything about hunting, chess, checkers or go fish for that matter but after reading the article, I can only surmise from this story that Fred Eshelman is a douchebag of the highest degree.

[old goat]

It's not solely on the private landowner--the govt is complicit. One solution is for the Feds to orchestrate and swaps--my eminent domain if necessary. Private nonprofits have been doing this to some extent, including buying out landowners, which is feasible only if the value of the land is minimal, but that would not be the case with grazing land.

[RootSkier]

Corner crossing will never be legal unless the Supreme Court decides to upend hundreds of years of consistent property law.

It is quite easy practically to condemn corners to provide access, however. But state and local governments would have to piss off rich landowners to do it, so that's a borderline non-starter.

[RootSkier]

Maybe not anymore if these guys win their case, the Federal statute would supersede any state law it appears to this non-lawyer.

What federal statute?

[riser4]

Eat the rich [landowners].

[jono]

What federal statute?

According to the thread, this one:

Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, § 3, 23 Stat. 322.

Which seems to imply that the checkerboard was put in place specifically to preserve the right to travel both east-west and north-south via the corners. Private corridors crossing the entire country (east to west, presumably) would have given those private landowners the right to block north-south travel.

[RootSkier]

According to the thread, this one:

Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, § 3, 23 Stat. 322.

Which seems to imply that the checkerboard was put in place specifically to preserve the right to travel both east-west and north-south via the corners. Private corridors crossing the entire country (east to west, presumably) would have given those private landowners the right to block north-south travel.

That statute doesn't imply fuck all, sorry. And it has nothing to do with corner crossing.

[ötzi]

Their lawyer seems to think it does, one of you is wrong. Probably him I'm sure.

[jono]

That statute doesn't imply fuck all, sorry. And it has nothing to do with corner crossing.

Sorry, I didn't mean the implication was in the statute. I meant the existence of the quote in the third post (scroll up for that) within a statute from the 19th century implies that back then Congress may have had a reason for the checkerboard. Namely, preserving travel in all directions.

Now, if the above quote is not actually in the cited statute I'll certainly retract all that. I'm just relying on the thread, like I said.

[RootSkier]

Their lawyer seems to think it does, one of you is wrong. Probably him I'm sure.

I'd take that bet.

[old goat]

According to the thread, this one:

Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, § 3, 23 Stat. 322.

Which seems to imply that the checkerboard was put in place specifically to preserve the right to travel both east-west and north-south via the corners. Private corridors crossing the entire country (east to west, presumably) would have given those private landowners the right to block north-south travel.

The wiki on the subject suggests that the reason for checkerboarding was that the railroad would increase the value of the surrounding land and that the govt could sell its parcels to the RR or to whomever bought the RR's parcels and make a lot of money. Except that the land turned out not to be worth that much and was never sold.
If access was the reason the govt could have just preserved easements to cross RR land along the tracks.

[RootSkier]

They sort of did try to reserve easements..but they fucked it up in a big way, not surprisingly. Here's the wikipedia summary version of events, which sprang from the government asserting that it had an ongoing right to use those railroad easements for the "rails to trails" program, after they were abandoned by the railroads:

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

WHOOPS!

[old goat]

They sort of did try to reserve easements..but they fucked it up in a big way, not surprisingly. Here's the wikipedia summary version of events, which sprang from the government asserting that it had an ongoing right to use those railroad easements for the "rails to trails" program, after they were abandoned by the railroads:

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

WHOOPS!

sounds like that applies to the 200 foot right of way for the tracks, not the checkerboard parcels granted to the railroads as an incentive to build track. In any case, it's an easement granted to the railroad to build track, not an easement for the public to cross RR land, and the easement reverts back to the public if the RR doesn't build track.

This issue has great relevance in Truckee. On Truckee Thursdays--very well attended weekly summer festivals held downtown, many people park south of the SP tracks and cross the tracks on foot to get downtown. The RR got pissed and put up a fence to prevent it. So no easement to cross the tracks here. So far no one has expressed an interest in going to the SCOTUS with the issue but you never can tell.

Another local issue--it took many years for Truckee to get SP to finally allow a pedestrian tunnel to be bored alongside Hwy 89 through the embankment of the elevated tracks. Until that happened pedestrians had to walk through the "mousehole"--a car tunnel barely wide enough for cars to go through in both directions at the same time.

In the RRs' minds it's still the 19th century.

[evdog]

So the hunters won the criminal case, but now are facing a civil suit. Curious what "damages" rich landowner will claim for violating a few cubic feet of his airspace for mere seconds...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...4686a5e0d15486