Those empty campsites

[rayfound]

This is good. Look forward to seeing things get a bit better - the system as it is now just encourages hoarding reservations.

Having to pay a fee to Booz Allen for the privilege of obtaining access to public land seriously pisses me off. It is on the same moral plane as the corner crossing issue in MT and WY.

Yeah, it sucks that so much of the money essentially goes to contractors not the parks/land/conservation.

I want to see public lands be affordable and accessible. That said, there is a "problem" with the system as it is now - reservation scarcity FAR exceeds actual campsite scarcity. Something has to change.

FCFS is all fine and good, but I don't know many folks who are able to plan a big camping trip, take time off work, drive several hours on the hopes that a campsite will be available.

[Gogd]

Having to pay a fee to Booz Allen for the privilege of obtaining access to public land seriously pisses me off. It is on the same moral plane as the corner crossing issue in MT and WY.

Note: the state has its own in-house reservation system, it is not a Booz Allen venture. But addressing Recreation.gov: Consider Recreation.gov is working as a sub-contractor, to administrate over permits and reservations. Someone has to pay for it. The government could take the task in house, but then we'd all be bellyaching about taxes and the byzantine, clunky web interface they'd come up with.

Now if the gripe is solely paying to access public lands, for what ever the reason, that is a separate issue, somewhat off topic.

As for the corner crossing issue - and going totally off topic:
It seems issues center on private property rights. The case that brought all of this into light was a private land owner sold a parcel that included a road hunters used to access a public lands. The new owner choose not to extend the courtesy, and gated the road, effectively blocking access to the public land. The owner had the legal right to do so, since he outright owned the property the road was on. Hopefully no one is arguing against the morality of respecting property rights. The problem arises when public lands are established in a manner that lack access without some sort of easement imposed on adjacent private land parcels. The fact a public parcel is interspersed with private land parcels in such a manner that one cannot get from one section of public land to another without crossing private property is not the land owner's problem, they have the right to control access to their land unless the title deed stipulates easement accommodations. The fact a previous owner allowed "corner crossing" does not extend to the current land owner, unless such access was stipulated in the title deed. As for situations where the entire perimeter of a public land is bounded by private property, the remedy depends on current state easement obligations, and/or possible legislative actions to provide this access.

Ed

[freestone]

The new owner choose not to extend the courtesy, and gated the road, effectively blocking access to the public land. The owner had the legal right to do so, since he outright owned the property the road was on. Hopefully no one is arguing against the morality of respecting property rights. The problem arises when public lands are established in a manner that lack access without some sort of easement imposed on adjacent private land parcels. The fact a public parcel is interspersed with private land parcels in such a manner that one cannot get from one section of public land to another without crossing private property is not the land owner's problem, they have the right to control access to their land unless the title deed stipulates easement accommodations. The fact a previous owner allowed "corner crossing" does not extend to the current land owner, unless such access was stipulated in the title deed. As for situations where the entire perimeter of a public land is bounded by private property, the remedy depends on current state easement obligations, and/or possible legislative actions to provide this access.

Ed

Not entirely true regarding private property rights. An owner suddenly prohibiting public access could be at risk of a Court action requiring him to continue such public access if the Public can prove that a Prescriptive Easement exists through the property. I would say in the above case, the public would prevail and the new owner would have to continue providing some sort of access.

[dave54]

There are federal laws prohibiting a private landowner blocking access to federal public lands. In the WY and MT cases the landowners are claiming trespass damages of millions of dollars because corner crossing involves a portion of your body 'trespassing' onto the airspace above that tiny sliver of property in the corner. One WY state court called BS on the claim and threw out the charges. That court ruling was limited to the one case and is not a precedent applicable to others.
It has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with a private landowner manipulating the law to have exclusive access to public lands at no cost to himself. Local Granges have admitted that.

[Gogd]

Hmm! The case I mentioned was as I described, and involved hunters using a dirt road pf some length situated on private property to access public lands - a much broader interpretation of corner cutting doctrine. If the cases you describe are as petty as you note, they sound like prickly retired suburbanites who bought a dream ranch, and now expect to get traction with their "get off my lawn" mentality. For our curiosity, can you share the links to these cases?

Ed