Corner Crossing . . .

No, not every state has right-of-trespass for surveying.

So, if you set your survey instrument at a common corner you are trespassing.

Yup.

@not-my-real-name?ÿ

Here in Northern Arizona the U.S. Government in its infinite wisdom gifted dozens (maybe hundreds) of alternate Sections to a Native American Tribe, creating a "checkerboard" of State Sections and Tribal Sections, thereby" landlocking" all the Sections involved, both State and Tribal. Neither party can legally cross from any one Section to another. The Tribe is a Nation in and of itself, so the State is prohibited from dealing directly with the Tribe to resolve the "corner-crossing" problem.

@jim-in-az?ÿ

I think the "gifted" part is kind of revisionist history or lore from a misunderstanding of what really was taking place:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)

the Intent was to disassemble and divide and conquer and repress, this isn't a political statement or baiting, it's accepted as historical fact.

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

@jim-in-az Now logically thinking. Do you think that's what they were thinking? Don't think like a lawyer, use some common sense.

Uh, the same thing happened in areas further east when the railroads were "given" sections that contained lands already claimed by homesteaders.?ÿ Nothing racist about it.?ÿ Just blind bureaucrats.?ÿ The Land League legal battles went on for years.

Here is only one example:

http://www.ksgenweb.org/archives/crawford/history/1905/017.html

@jitterboogie Railroads were given similar checkerboard sections of land. What was the intent concerning the railroads? Why is it different from the intent concerning the Native American tribes?

@lurker?ÿ

Go read the Dawes act and it's fallout, and failure, it's a real tragedy.

the railroads were indeed the rich and powerful. The Native American population wasn't, and still aren't

?ÿ

again I love your warm fuzzy almost ad hominem attacks, I expect them, and look forward to them each time.

???? ????ÿ

Here is a little history of a very early case of individual ownership rather than ownership by the tribe.?ÿ In this case, it was the Cherokee Nation acquiring 25 miles by 50 miles.?ÿ However, they set it up so that individuals could own parcels of land.?ÿ That is how it was that one specific Cherokee happened to own the site of where the US military wanted to build a fort.?ÿ It was on a river and a short distance from the west line of Missouri.?ÿ The goal was to add a new fort roughly halfway between Fort Leavenworth and Fort Gibson.?ÿ This was a very good location.?ÿ John Rogers said, "Show me the money."?ÿ They didn't enough money to buy at his price.?ÿ They continued there journey another 50 miles to the north, roughly five miles beyond the Cherokee lands, and found the bluffs overlooking the Marmaton River.?ÿ There they built Camp Scott, which later became Fort Scott.

THE CHEROKEE NEUTRAL LANDS.

In the exchange of their Georgia possessions, for the lands in Arkansas, there was a money consideration, also, amounting to $5,000,000, in favor of the Indians, and which was not paid at the time of the treaty. Really, at the time that the Cherokee Indians were moved from the State of Georgia to the State of Arkansas there was no exchange of lands; the government gave them the Arkansas lands, and in 1835 bought their Georgia lands for $5,000,000, the government holding the money in trust for the tribe. At the time of the treaty of 1828, when 7,000,000 acres, now comprising the Indian Territory, were ceded to the Indians, they were dissatisfied, urging that the tract would not be sufficient for their needs. In order, therefore, to appease their dissatisfaction, the government sold them a strip of land, 25 miles wide and 50 miles long, lying between the State of Missouri and the Osage Reservation, for $500,000, to be deducted from the $5,000,000 which the government owed the Cherokee Indians for their Georgia lands. This strip of land, which now comprises Cherokee and Crawford counties, was then known as the Cherokee Neutral Lands. We now come to consider some of the more interesting incidents relating to this much disputed district.

THE FIRST WHITE SETTLEMENTS.

As early as 1835 settlements by white men began to be made in what is now Cherokee County, although those who came knew that the land belonged to the Cherokee Indians. The white population grew very slowly. In the year 1842 the government endeavored to secure a tract of land on Spring River, on which to build a fort. The land belonged to John Rogers, and he demanded $4,000 for it. The officer in charge of the company of soldiers was not authorized to pay more than $1,OOO. As a result of the failure to get the land, the officer, under the direction of the Secretary of War, selected the site of Fort Scott, and there the fort was built and barracks erected for the garrison. This change in the government plan had the effect of checking what otherwise would have been a brisk immigration into the Indian lands; for in 1860, 25 years after John Rogers settled in what is now Lowell township, Cherokee County, the white population of the whole Cherokee strip was only 1,500. However, by the year 1858 the settlers had become sufficiently numerous to give rise to much dissatisfaction among the Cherokee Indians; and in that year the government sent Albert Sidney Johnston, who afterward became a distinguished Confederate general, to make a survey of the Cherokee lands, preparatory to moving the settlers off the tract. The survey being finished and duly reported to the government, Captain Lynn, who in 1861 was killed at the battle of Wilson's Creek, near Springfield, Missouri, was sent from Fort Scott, in 1859, with a battalion of soldiers, to move the settlers off. The work was completely done; for, in addition to moving them off, all their improvements were burned or otherwise destroyed. James A. Sheridan, who died in Columbus only a few years ago, and who is widely remembered in Cherokee County, was among the settlers who were compelled to get off the lands.

?ÿ

The settlers that were driven off were White settlers.?ÿ It was land owned by individual members of the Cherokee Nation.

Yellow is BLM lands, those Missouri hunters couldn't find any yellow land there to hunt on.?ÿ

GMAFB!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: @skeeter1996

@jim-in-az Now logically thinking. Do you think that's what they were thinking? Don't think like a lawyer, use some common sense.

I don't think they were thinking at all when they drafted the transfer documents! I'm not thinking like a lawyer, I'm merely repeating what the BLM Legal people say. And the Tribe has also adopted that view. They have actually blocked themselves from being able to use these lands in more than one case...

This issue isn't going away anytime soon.?ÿ The wisest action for ranchers and farmers would be to dedicate access to public lands and maintain control of these areas.?ÿ Trying to have their cake and eat it too will likely backfire in the long run.?ÿ Forcing the courts to weigh in on access to lands held in the public trust could result in blanket access easements that go far beyond corner crossing.?ÿ Courts can draw from cases involving the Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47, California Coastal Commission, and many others that support serious consideration of the public's right to access lands held in their trust.?ÿ

Conversely, if the issue is pushed and it's decided in favor of private landowners, this would put a feather in the caps of organizations working toward the federal divestment of public lands to the states.?ÿ Loss of habitat for North American wildlife is a serious concern to me but I can simultaneously understand why folks living in those areas would care about humans more than sage grouse and wildflowers.

Hunters, bikers, hikers and others can surely trash up public spaces and no one ever forgets when they do.?ÿ At the same time, we never remember the ones that leave no trace and leave with their pockets filled with some other person's trash.?ÿ There are also ranchers and farmers who profit from private access to public lands.?ÿ Land owner tags for elk can sell for many thousands of dollars.?ÿ The loss of exclusivity is not trivial.

My prediction is that the damages incurred to the land owner from a corner crossing will be determined to be inferior to the damages incurred to the public from being denied access to their lands. There'll be a great deal of legalize thrown in, but in the end private landowners will not be able to prevent corner crossing and then it'll be a small step to something akin to an implied easement to access large tracts of public land.?ÿ?ÿ

That is when legalized hunting of humans will begin.