Corner crossing case

[Rowdie]

 

[Lycanthrope]

I dont think the problem is people asking permission as much as it is landowners thinking they have exclusive access to public land. The public should have a right to access public land...

 

[ndlongshot]

If landowners have the right to block access where they own adjoining corners, by precedent that means public land owners (the public) has right to access across the same said inverse corner. But one disallows the other from the same rights as the other. Its a chicken and an egg situation.

If one side wins, the other loses something and vice versa. Clear as mud.

Supreme Court needs to finalize the issue for good.

 

[Trip McNeely]

If the problem of crossing at a corner is ypu physically “touch” private property by going over …. Wouldn’t permanent fences and posts that are on the corner be touching or set on public land as well? It can’t be one way or another….. where does the private ot public start? If a rancher puts a corner post in technically it’s being placed on public land by the same logic being used…. those permanent structures need to be set back off public property?

 

[Lycanthrope]

If the problem of crossing at a corner is ypu physically “touch” private property by going over …. Wouldn’t permanent fences and posts that are on the corner be touching or set on public land as well? It can’t be one way or another….. where does the private ot public start? If a rancher puts a corner post in technically it’s being placed on public land by the same logic being used…. those permanent structures need to be set back off public property?

you dont really have to touch a post if you use a ladder, but thats kinda stupid, really fences should be set back from the actual property line IMO, at least a couple feet, that would resolve this issue quite easily. My guess is the biggest problem is that some of these landowners bought their land at inflated values because they thought it would always give them exclusive access to the public property thats adjacent to their land, or they are guiding or allowing guides to access that land for $$$, its aways about $$$ and greed when it comes down to it, otherwise who really cares?

 

[Obi-Wan]

one could always try this

 

[bravo]

If you aren’t setting foot on private land, there should be nothing at all to discuss. The director of the property owners group has a problem with “people who don’t want to ask permission” and “think they can go wherever they want”. This line of thinking is the root of the problem. The hunters don’t think they can go wherever they want, they are only on public land. Therefore they don’t need to beg (pay) the king for permission.

 

[Rowdie]

I'd like to see a 10 ft radius of easement on corners. That way no need to bring a ladder. keeping people from accessing public land is criminal in my eyes.

 

[Ruttin]

When hunting in WY i have went out of my way just to observe and locate some corner markers in a checkerboard area. My ONX was off over 4 feet in multiple areas. You definitely need to take your time to find the monuments. There were many areas where the markers were nowhere to be found and more than a couple had cellular cameras placed by them.

 

[dblkluk]

One of the worst parts of this whole issue is seeing the real estate listings for property out west that say something like "Includes 40 deeded acres bordering US forest service land which allows nearly exclusive private access to an additional 10,000 acres" Greasy land brokers have figured out that private access to public land is worth big $$ and its essentially being "sold" all over across the west.

 

[Rowdie]

It's really pretty simple, landowners don't want anyone on the land, even if it's publically owned. They remind me of the guy who freaked out about a blind touching his corn. If you touch one inch of their land for less than a second they act like you trespassed for a weekend all over every inch of their property.

 

[Obi-Wan]

It should be law that any rancher that leases public land and harasses anyone legally using that land should lose their lease. years back there was a guy South of Fryberg and every year he would harass us and try to chase us off national grasslands, he felt that since he has the lease he owned the land.

 

[CatDaddy]

If you aren’t setting foot on private land, there should be nothing at all to discuss. The director of the property owners group has a problem with “people who don’t want to ask permission” and “think they can go wherever they want”. This line of thinking is the root of the problem. The hunters don’t think they can go wherever they want, they are only on public land. Therefore they don’t need to beg (pay) the king for permission.

Problem is I think the landowner owns airspace above the land, not just the ground itself.

Not saying I agree with it, but it's the contention of this issue as I understand it.

 

[walleyeman_1875]

I had to research what corner crossing was. Talk about stupid. This shouldn’t even be an issue as the public has the right to access public land.

Do we have laws regulating this in ND?

 

[bravo]

I had to research what corner crossing was. Talk about stupid. This shouldn’t even be an issue as the public has the right to access public land.

Do we have laws regulating this in ND?

The North Dakota section line law pretty much guarantees access. You may have to walk instead of drive, but you have the public access easement of 33 feet on either side of a section line. Your experience using these easements may vary depending on the adjacent landowner.

 

[NodakBob]

The North Dakota section line law pretty much guarantees access. You may have to walk instead of drive, but you have the public access easement of 33 feet on either side of a section line. Your experience using these easements may vary depending on the adjacent landowner.

It is my understanding that in ND the county decides if the section line is open or closed. If there’s no road going down it, it might be closed. If closed, it’s considered trespassing…

 

[ndlongshot]

It is my understanding that in ND the county decides if the section line is open or closed. If there’s no road going down it, it might be closed. If closed, it’s considered trespassing…

...and if it runs into water you are SOL

 

[bravo]

A landowner can try to get a section line closed by the county commissioner, but there has to be a hearing. The requirements are somewhat strict. I have a family member who tried to get one closed that went through a low spot causing guys using it to veer into his or his neighbor's land. Denied.

 

[bigv]

speaking of that landowner who went loco over the duck hunters touching his corn....is there any update of that situation/people involved?

 

[Allen]

It is my understanding that in ND the county decides if the section line is open or closed. If there’s no road going down it, it might be closed. If closed, it’s considered trespassing…

You are on the right track. By the ND Constitution, every section line is a public road available for transit. However, the counties do have the ability to close a section line, and for the most part the county commissioners seem to take the closing of a section line pretty serious. I have run into a few over the years, they were largely closed because the adjacent sections were owned by one entity and there was a significant natural obstruction that prevented transit to the land on the other side of the section.

Getting a list of closed section lines is not always easy for a given county. It's been a few years since I tried to get it for a county after a landowner told me a section line was closed. As it turned out, it wasn't closed. Just blocked by a few round bales, which is illegal.

A gal I know owns some land and her neighbor fences or plants the section line she needs to access a part of her land just about every year. She just tells her husband to cut the wires and drive through the corn. She cracks me up.