[djha-skin]

I live in Utah, where 54% of the state is public land. San Juan County is 94% public land.

It's cool because you got just a few hours south of the Wasatch Front, where 92% of Utahns live, on state route 29, and you see beautiful vistas of practically untouched territory.

The truth is public land is generally unreachable because there are no roads out there. Sure there are lots of roads into BLM land but there's just lots and lots of BLM land and they can't build roads into all of it on their current budget. Besides, usually the roads are gravel and of questionable maintenance.

[LorenPechtel]

As I hiker I definitely disagree with the notion that no roads = no access. I've been plenty of places you could not construct a road without some pretty hefty engineering.

And note that this article is about a case where there were no roads but the hunters were there anyway. I'm definitely on the side of the corner-crossers, you don't get to control public land by land-locking it. I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted, but they have to grant it. And I would say that any corner like this should automatically become shared access to both owners of the corner (in this case one of those owners is public, but I would apply the same standard if both were private), they can move anything between their properties so long as they minimize the intrusion and neither can do anything to hinder the other's ability to do so.

Locally, we have an interesting hiking area that's been a matter of dispute for many years and it isn't even due to a hostile land owner. There is private land with an old mine inside a national recreation area here. Unfortunately, it cuts the only way you can reach a canyon without encountering terrain obstacles. Reportedly, somebody's car got damaged while parked there, their insurance company tried to go after the landowner and the landowner's insurance company responded by requiring him to keep people off the land (he hadn't cared about us hikers, our passage did not harm him.) There is also the issue of a couple of mineshafts that idiots (the timbers do not look safe to me!) like to explore. Some states have gone partway towards addressing this--exempting the landowner from liability for any natural hazards (hey, nature doesn't come OSHA-sanitized, us backcountry guys know we need to make our own safety evaluation of the situation!), but this doesn't deal with the issue of old mineshafts. I'd like to see it go farther, exempt the landowner for all natural or old hazards, they're only liable if they create a hazard.

[CWuestefeld]

> I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted

Suppose that the public land is sandwiched between two private owners. Which of those private owners must grant the access?

Worse, suppose that that chunk in the middle wasn't originally public land, but is later purchased by the state. At that point, the previous owners - having done nothing on their own - are suddenly encumbered with a right-of-way across their land, decreasing their value. This sounds like a taking to me, and thus subject to the 5th Amendment. (IANAL)

[Brian_K_White]

I'm fine with the horrible unbearable unfair rapacious evil taking.

As far as I'm concerned there shouldalways have been some provision where the government essentially subtracts a roadway from any parcel that otherwise blocks access to any other, any time the two parcels are not owned by the same person. If there is a way to make a path along a border, then do that and intrude 1/2 as much on 2. If an owner would prefer the path be elsewhere for some reason and is willing to provide a reasonable alternative, allow them.

There is no cause at all to pity the poor abused land owner for their inability to control access to public land, or even just another private land that they don't own, and the "taking" to carve out a path from "their" property is no "taking" at all. They and you are crying over the loss of something they never had and moral right to in the first place.

Wrong side to pity.

[barsonme]

This already happens with public utilities and whatnot.

I own a number of acres with a public walking trail through part of it. I don’t particularly like having random people being able to walk though my property, but honestly it’s such a minor inconvenience. And people use it much less than you’d think, especially in sparsely populated places like Wyoming.

[daydream]

If you own the property how is the public allowed to walk on the trails? Is there an easement or something similar?

[LorenPechtel]

Trails create easements that can continue even when the land becomes private.

[barsonme]

Yeah, there is an easement for the trail.

[b3morales]

This has nothing to do with public ownership; it occurs with private ownership of the interior parcel as well. Are the outer parcel owners also unfairly encumbered by an access easement then?

[jcrawfordor]

This is a very real problem in some agricultural country! Not unusual for farms to purchase a field that is surrounded by other owners and then have a big dispute over easement to access. It's a particularly large problem in areas that were historically subdivided without road easements between lots (as is the typical modern practice), or that were originally subdivided for reasons like mineral exploitation that did not customarily use road easements.

[JamesianP]

Depends how they got that way. Will they pay for it? Perhaps they made an unwise investment and should have paid for more rights.

I have seen the case where someone buys a parcel from a larger property. Then turned around and demand easement access from the neighbor on the other side who was not party to the deal, because that neighbor has better roads and is easier to cross.

[LorenPechtel]

The burden should be on the one who created the landlocked parcel.

[sokoloff]

That would be a 4th Amendment concern, not a 5th.

[yummypaint]

It's a good thing that there aren't roads in every conceivable place they could be built. My favorite places on public land are still in good shape because they take planning and effort to reach, and are only accessible on foot.

[bombcar]

There’s a difference in kind between “you can drive to this plot of land the size of a smaller state but there are no roads in it” and “the only way to reach this land at all is via helicopter”.

[Brian_K_White]

The land owners in this case are even actually arguing that so much as waving your arm over their line violates their air space, so even a helecopter is no good. Which makes me wonder why I don't immediately go buy a $5000 plot somewhere and sue all the airlines for millions.

edit - ok actually a helecopter is good, see several other comments

[Turing_Machine]

Same in here Alaska, except far more so and without the gravel roads. Air or water travel is the only practical way to reach most of the state. Sometimes foot, snow machine or dog sled are feasible for some areas, at some seasons of the year.

[shantaram07]

.

[bombcar]

BLM Land has been a mainstay of the US for years and widely supported by both parties, especially republicans.

https://www.blm.gov/

[seattle_spring]

Hmm not so sure about that. Republicans are generally pissed that Utah has so much federal land. Their talking point is often explicitly aiming to grant it back to the state. Part of the reason they were so against Bears Ears and Grand Staircase was because it further pushed back what the state could do with that land.

And please don’t kid yourself if you think they want the state to control it for preservation.

[shantaram07]

Yes, I realised my lack of knowledge and creating an assumption there. Sorry.

[bombcar]

No worries! It’s a relatively common (and amusing) mistake.

[shantaram07]

Oh you meant “Bureau of Land Management”. My apologies for inferring it wrong.

[ghgdynb1]

BLM means Bureau of Land Management

[shantaram07]

Yes, sorry for inferring it wrong.