The ruling very intentionally says "on foot", which limits it to people walking across. Leaves the door open for future debate/interpretation about vehicular traffic. You might be able to design an offroad vehicle that can "step" across the boundary but by my (non-lawyer) reading this isn't covered by that.
From reading the article, it appears that there was a fence (presumably intersecting sections of fence) that had to be overcome. Climbing the fences would be, nominally, stepping foot on those fenced properties. Using the ladder let them go over the corner boundary without actually having to step foot on the other two adjacent properties.
| Public
---+---
Public |
The fences belong to the private properties (if my understanding is correct) and the ladder lets them technically remain only, with regard to "setting foot", on the public properties.
I tried to Google about this, but I could not find anything. As one this page, there are no serious discussions about this matter. Can you share a reference?
I should have been more clear in my original post:
The precedent is that corner crossing is illegal and fences to enforce that are ok.
I meant to ask: Are fences around your lot of land legal? I would think, yes, to protected livestock against predators. However, it would be trivial to add a small space at the corner for people to do "corner crossing" between checkerboard public lands.
Next, the PDF is a great share. I am feasting on it now! Page 7 reads:
Other than these chained-together signs, there were no posts, fending, or building within one-quarter of a more of the corner.
What a laugh! Thank goodness this kind of behaviour is being overruled!
Another good part (pg7 again):
[T]here is no evidence the Defendants caused any damage to the Plaintiff's property.
On page 9, the photo of A-frame ladder in action is brilliant! The guy looks so hardcore in 100% camo. This is the like the ultimate HN "legal hack". If you position the ladder just right, all four legs will be in public lands.
Judges make the law in this country due to our common law system. The law from 1885 may say that fencing off legally accessible land is illegal, but according to the land owner the supreme court said corner crossing is illegal so the fence in this situation would not count, because it wasn't blocking legal access. The question that matters here is whether corner crossing is allowed, the fence question follows.
They are supposed to pay the rancher a trespass fee to be allowed access to the public land through their property or hire a guide that has a commercial agreement with rancher that includes access to the public lands.
Or, they could just... ask. Never a guarantee, but still an option until this issue can be more clearly defined from a legal standpoint.
>“Last year, a couple of dads from Missoula and their sons showed up and asked me if they could hunt here. I told them to give me 15 minutes and I’d take them out with me. We got some really nice mule deer bucks for their sons, and they helped me work cattle the next day. We got some antelope for the dads the day after. So we had fun. One of them even bought beef from me this year.”