A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point.
A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
21–30 of 189 posts
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#22A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. We are a very individualistic people, I don’t want people in my little nation state.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#23Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians
I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…
That's not correct in the slightest - landowners do not control the airspace above their property. That's why municipalities can't ban the use of drones, just their launching and control from their territory.
Even the national park service, which tries to restrict aircraft as much as possible, can only regulate in this way (and to prevent harassing wildlife).
I have a commercial drone license.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…
> but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Surely there is some altitude at which that doesn't apply? Otherwise there'd be problems with commercial jets too?
Not sure about ladders, but the post you're replying to is spouting complete nonsense wrt aircraft.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#25I 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…
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…
> 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)
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…
I guess there must be some upper limit, otherwise normal commercial air traffic at 10k meter / 30k feet would be in serious trouble. As long as the public land is large enough that you can land the helicopter far enough away from the private property to not expose yourself to other problems (some kind of noise limit maybe?), it seems like it should be doable right? Fly over the property at 3000 feet and land on publi…
Much lower than that -- aircraft ascending from or descending into airports cross tons of private property lines.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#27This is insane. Nobody should be allowed to block access like that. The land owner was harassing these men while they were on public land and is continuing to harass them using a court. The landowner should be in prison.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#28Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians
I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…
This is incorrect. Imagine the impact on Starlink of property rights extended infinitely.
In the US there is not a specific limit, but the principle is “your airspace rights extend as far as could reasonably be used in connection with the property.”[0]
It also depends on frequency of overflight. A small plane landing at a nearby rural airport once a week is treated differently than swarms of drones flying at the same altitude all day every day.
So maybe a few hundred feet, maaaaybe 5000 feet if your property is a helipad. But not infinite.
[0] https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-prop...
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#29I 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…
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.
Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property
#30A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. We are a very individualistic people, I don’t want people in my little nation state.
> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard.
FUD. Freedom to Roam laws only allow camping a fair distance away from inhabited buildings.