Four Missouri elk hunters used [a stepladder] to climb over an invisible corner from one parcel of Bureau of Land Management terrain to another. They never touched a toe on two adjacent swaths of private property marked by “No Trespassing” signs.

But to the owner of that property, a North Carolina multimillionaire whose portfolio includes 22,000 acres of this game-rich mountain, the hunters’ aerial corner-cross was trespassing all the same. Whether he is correct — and the extent to which private property rights can thwart the public’s ability to access its land on thousands of similar corners — is now being weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver.

  • ryathal
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    A full on right to roam is probably a bit extreme, but I could see a minimal right of way being required around public lands.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It works fine in Scotland, buffalo buffalo buffalo it just has exceptions for, well its a bit undefined but it basically means peoples gardens, industrial estates, fields with delicate crops. I think the best way to describe it is you can go anywhere that hasn’t been actively and greatly transformed for private use.

    • BakedGoods
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Not extreme at all. What’s extreme is the “mUh pRuPuRtY” of Americans. I could probably go a year without hearing the word property used in my native tongue but when listening to Americans, it’s every other word out of their mouths.

      • ryathal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Right to roam would require major liability reform and a massive reduction in lawyers in the US. Overzealous lawyers have ruined a lot of things in the US.