Corner Crossing (is any hunter against it?)

[lak2004]

I like case law as it gives some insight to how a court would look at a particular case. However, one would have to wonder if it is illegal, why aren't there hundreds to thousands of cases filed each year for corner crossing. Here are my guesses: 1) District Attorneys like being elected. 2) Depending on how the law is written, it would be virtual impossible to get a conviction. 3) They have better things to prosecute than a guy trying to access public land. 4) District Attorneys may feel the case law cited above is not applicable to a different set of facts such as corner crossing. Unless you're corner crossing in a jet airplane.

5. The population that contends with the issue is miniscule.

Does or should that matter? My opinion is no.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[Pro953]

Is this serious? Or a joke? A Go Fund Me??

Come on slick. I thought you were going to give me some money to cover my gas... worth a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaultman]

I agree, there are setback regulations for a reason...like the one described by vaultman.

Seems like the "property rights" argument is a one way street and that you don't have to consider either the rights of the publics property rights, or the rights of adjacent landowners.

IMO, your "rights" end where they infringe on mine...building a concrete wall right on a surveyed corner, absolutely is an infringement of others rights.

I would be shocked if there were setback requirements for a retaining wall or fence. Setbacks are for buildings. Now in the Cities sometimes they have setback for other items, but you will rarely, if ever, find a setback for a fence or wall on rural property. (Keep in mind this is not a structural wall for retaining soils.) It is that OWNERS right to keep trespassers off his/her land and they have EVERY right to build a wall.

If you want to corner cross, get permission from the owner. Simple as that. Owner says "no" then we best not do it.

 

[Vaultman]

I live in a newer neighborhood and my neighbor just found out that the corner of his property (his house is on the corner) has an easement. He found this out when they came and built a sidewalk running across a small corner of his property. If this can happen in a residential area, why not in a rural area? Nobody wants to allow trespassing, we just want access to public land whether that's from roads or maybe corner easements. I believe anybody who disagrees with the government trying to provide people access to public land has ulterior motives...

I would bet that your neighbor was made aware of that easement before he bought the house. It was in the title report that he received (unless he did not have a lender). If it wasn't in the title report, he has a claim against his title company.

 

[Billinsd]

I'm 100% OK with it. Public land is public land.
If anyone has a problem with me invading 6" of their air space
then they've got bigger issues they need to deal with.

Yes, it's completely ridiculous. That's why corner crossing is legal, unless there is a law passed to make it illegal.

 

[Vaultman]

I’m not aware of any construction that is allowed ON the actual property line? Maybe it’s legal, but seems there is always a set-back of some type?

Regardless, Anyone who built a concrete wall for the sole purpose of preventing the public from accessing public land that everyone else pays for is a complete dirt-bag. That would prove that the only reason for this stupidity is the greed of having that access to themselves and no one else, even though they don’t own it.


You can’t cheat the mountain

There is a LOT of construction that is allowed on the property line. But all it takes is a 1" or 2" gap as no one is going to squeeze through. That private owner can enjoy his right to all his land and can restrict anyone he pleases from entering. Dirt-bag or not. Make friends with the owner, and get permission.

I am of the opinion that If we (as hunters) keep saying screw you to the private owner, we shooting ourselves in the foot. We really need to respect private ownership. YMMV.

 

[Billinsd]

I would be shocked if there were setback requirements for a retaining wall or fence. Setbacks are for buildings. Now in the Cities sometimes they have setback for other items, but you will rarely, if ever, find a setback for a fence or wall on rural property. It is that OWNERS right to keep trespassers off his/her land and they have EVERY right to build a wall.

Absolutely. A problem with crossing intersecting pieces of public land would be if both adjacent private properties built fences, or especially walls. It still should be legal to cross, but it's more difficult. Land owners would polite to set back their fences/walls to allow access, but don't have too. I can emphasize with land owners who have trespassing issues. I can see where some could stray off onto the private property, accidently, and on purpose. I've witnessed this myself. I hunted a brushy place where everyone has to walk over a survey marker. Since it's brushy it's difficult to find your way back exactly to the marker. I've seen people get busted and the warden said the guys strayed off onto public land, a hundred yards or so. It would be a he said, she said kind of thing. I believe the land owner was hassling anyone in there hunting, so I stopped going. Whenever you hunt close to private land you have to be prepared to be challenged. You may not know exactly where you are or in San Diego County, land owners either purposely or impurposely say you are trespassing when you are not.

 

[Billinsd]

I am of the opinion that If we (as hunters) keep saying screw you to the private owner, we shooting ourselves in the foot. We really need to respect private ownership. YMMV.

I don't read that anyone is saying screw the property owner. What they and I am saying we have a right to access our public land and crossing from the tip of one public corner to another is legal unless it's a law has been passed specifically making it illegal. Most hunters don't like this. I don't either. If you do hunt close to private land you need to be prepared to be challenged and hassled. Maybe you crossed over, maybe not. I personally don't like to cut it close, because I've had wardens stalk me for hours hoping I'd step over the line. It's like having a cop follow behind your car all day. Then of course I've been accused of being hundreds of yards from when my gps showed me being to an illiterate forest fireman hostile towards hunters. You can show some people your gps wit your location on a map and they will still argue.

 

[Vaultman]

I don't read that anyone is saying screw the property owner. What they and I am saying we have a right to access our public land and crossing from the tip of one public corner to another is legal unless it's a law has been passed specifically making it illegal. Most hunters don't like this. I don't either. If you do hunt close to private land you need to be prepared to be challenged and hassled. Maybe you crossed over, maybe not. I personally don't like to cut it close, because I've had wardens stalk me for hours hoping I'd step over the line. It's like having a cop follow behind your car all day. Then of course I've been accused of being hundreds of yards from when my gps showed me being to an illiterate forest fireman hostile towards hunters. You can show some people your gps wit your location on a map and they will still argue.

If it is an island of public completely surrounded buy private owners (and no corner to cross), do we have a right to trespass to get to it? I say no. I see no difference when there is a 'corner crossing' situation. A little nit picky maybe, but technically and legally, as well as mathematically correct: there is no width to a property corner. Therefore physically there can be no person that can get over just the property corner.

There is a lot of public land that we do not have a right to hunt. National Parks. Public Streets. City Hall. Wildlife Preserve. The Washington Monument. Sure it is all different (and some of those examples may be incorrect), but my point in that is that there are more reasons to have public land than for hunters or other recreational activities.

 

[Btaylor]

There is a LOT of construction that is allowed on the property line. But all it takes is a 1" or 2" gap as no one is going to squeeze through. That private owner can enjoy his right to all his land and can restrict anyone he pleases from entering. Dirt-bag or not. Make friends with the owner, and get permission.

I am of the opinion that If we (as hunters) keep saying screw you to the private owner, we shooting ourselves in the foot. We really need to respect private ownership. YMMV.

Respect is a 2 way street.

 

[Trial153]

If it is an island of public completely surrounded buy private owners (and no corner to cross), do we have a right to trespass to get to it? I say no. I see no difference when there is a 'corner crossing' situation. A little nit picky maybe, but technically and legally, as well as mathematically correct: there is no width to a property corner. Therefore physically there can be no person that can get over just the property corner.

There is a lot of public land that we do not have a right to hunt. National Parks. Public Streets. City Hall. Wildlife Preserve. The Washington Monument. Sure it is all different (and some of those examples may be incorrect), but my point in that is that there are more reasons to have public land than for hunters or other recreational activities.

do you convolute everything someone says to twist it to your narrative? No one is talking about accessing landlocked though private property. We are talking about a public land to public land access. But keep the strawman argument because it just lends weight to the fact that other then plain greediness there is no logical reason to contest a public to public corner crossing.

 

[Vaultman]

do you convolute everything someone says to twist it to your narrative? No one is talking about accessing landlocked though private property. We are talking about a public land to public land access. But keep the strawman argument because it just lends weight to the fact that other then plan greediness there is no logical reason to contest a public to public corner crossing.

Ok... There is no width to a property corner. So, if only two corners meet it is landlocked.
We are talking about public land to public land access OVER private land.

 

[Vaultman]

do you convolute everything someone says to twist it to your narrative? No one is talking about accessing landlocked though private property. We are talking about a public land to public land access. But keep the strawman argument because it just lends weight to the fact that other then plan greediness there is no logical reason to contest a public to public corner crossing.

I agree that it is greedy if someone builds walls like I graphically depicted above if it is the same private land owner (I still think it is their right to be greedy though, just like I have the right to think they are a jerk-hole). If in my graphic it is two different private owners I do not think it is greedy at all. (Not just different ownership's but actual owners).

 

[Billinsd]

If it is an island of public completely surrounded buy private owners (and no corner to cross), do we have a right to trespass to get to it? I say no.

Agreed.

I see no difference when there is a 'corner crossing' situation.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

technically and legally, as well as mathematically correct: there is no width to a property corner.

Technically how are you correct? Legally how are you correct? Mathematically how are you correct? The way I see it is a person steps from one public property parcel to another. What States consider corner crossing illegal and punishable where a law has not been passed to make it illegal? I'm curious.

Therefore physically there can be no person that can get over just the property corner.

Yes you step from one public patch of land to another crossing over an intersecting point of land between four touching corners.

There is a lot of public land that we do not have a right to hunt. National Parks. Public Streets. City Hall. Wildlife Preserve. The Washington Monument. Sure it is all different (and some of those examples may be incorrect), but my point in that is that there are more reasons to have public land than for hunters or other recreational activities.

You are right that there is a lot of public land that we don't have the right to hunt. Actually hunting is not a right. I'm talking about access. You've gone off on a tangent or rather this is a Red Herring.

 

[RockinU]

The part that's stupid about all this is that if you corner cross (assuming some mechanism that doesn't damage a fence) you are doing absolutely zero harm to a landowner's property, You are in no way diminishing their ability to use or enjoy their property. The only possible diminished use they could see would be of OUR property. Their sole intent here has to be to deny public access to public land...it's an issue that needs legal remedy.

You can argue technicalities, and legalities, and all theories you want, what it boils down to is self serving douchebaggery...

 

[FLAK]

The public land is as much mine as the private is theirs.

 

[Pro953]

Agreed. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.Technically how are you correct? Legally how are you correct? Mathematically how are you correct? The way I see it is a person steps from one public property parcel to another. What States consider corner crossing illegal and punishable where a law has not been passed to make it illegal? I'm curious. Yes you step from one public patch of land to another crossing over an intersecting point of land between four touching corners. You are right that there is a lot of public land that we don't have the right to hunt. Actually hunting is not a right. I'm talking about access. You've gone off on a tangent or rather this is a Red Herring.

Hi Bill,

I think the legal question is less “is corner crossing legal” It’s is corner crossing trespassing.

The general argument is for the group that thinks corner crossing is legal, defines property rights in two dimensions. This group also seems to argue that it is morally wrong to restrict access to public land. Something that I believe is also not codified in law.

The argument “against” corner crossing as it stands currently is that property rights are on 3 dimensions and that it is physically impossible to cross from corner to corner without legally trespassing on the private property on the adjoining corners.

I hope some of the mud slinging can die down. It’s a interesting conversation and good to air everyone’s opinion, and certainly nothing wrong with differing opinions. I believe everyone here would love to/ or currently loves to cross corner to corner it’s just how we gain or codify that right into written law.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[100percent]

W

Come on slick. I thought you were going to give me some money to cover my gas... worth a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wheres the support???

The part that's stupid about all this is that if you corner cross (assuming some mechanism that doesn't damage a fence) you are doing absolutely zero harm to a landowner's property, You are in no way diminishing their ability to use or enjoy their property. The only possible diminished use they could see would be of OUR property. Their sole intent here has to be to deny public access to public land...it's an issue that needs legal remedy.

You can argue technicalities, and legalities, and all theories you want, what it boils down to is self serving douchebaggery...

Guys,
Lets dont make this personal.
In a true fence corner situation the liability for public personal injury will fall on the private landowner who owns the fence—-every time. Too many bad lawyers and broke plaintiffs looking for an easy dollar.
Most respondents to this post vehemently support the legality of corner crossing yet ridicule the “go fund me” guy on here who says he will take the risk to set the ever elusive precedent needed to contest this restriction???
Time to put up, shut up or provide a better solution!

 

[idelkslayer]

Yes, property owners have a right to their property, and a right to not have it damaged. That is why I previously said that if a fence is damaged in the act of crossing a corner then whoever did the damage should be held liable. It would be better to have steps over the corners so that fences don't get damaged. Since the public wants access, the public should pay for the construction and maintenance of the steps.

However, property owners seem to want to have absolute protection of their rights while receiving leniency for infringing on the rights of others. I have many times found fencing that meanders in and out of public property. Why can a landowner run his fence onto public property by several feet to avoid rock outcroppings, stream meanderings and other obstructions? How can they justify those infringements and then become angry about someone passing through the airspace over a corner?

 

[RockinU]

W


Wheres the support???



Guys,
Lets dont make this personal.
In a true fence corner situation the liability for public personal injury will fall on the private landowner who owns the fence—-every time. Too many bad lawyers and broke plaintiffs looking for an easy dollar.
Most respondents to this post vehemently support the legality of corner crossing yet ridicule the “go fund me” guy on here who says he will take the risk to set the ever elusive precedent needed to contest this restriction???
Time to put up, shut up or provide a better solution!

I'm not making anything personal, I've singled out no one.

Look, there are lots of good landowners out there who do provide access easements, some for compensation, other not, and they seem to have found a solution for the potential liability. The solution is access easements, constructed by, and maintained with public funding. This doesn't have to be hard.