# Corner Jumping in Michigan



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

So much very accurate info intermingled with half facts and plain old hearsay that it boggles the mind! Talk to a GOOD real estate attorney for info that has any semblance of holding up when push comes to shove. FM


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Forest Meister said:


> So much very accurate info intermingled with half facts and plain old hearsay that it boggles the mind! Talk to a GOOD real estate attorney for info that has any semblance of holding up when push comes to shove. FM


I might need to. If I was just jumping across to run a dog I might take more chance. But in the next year or two I'll be setting bear baits and stands. Seems like if I'm using the area that intensively it won't go not noticed so I'd better be somewhat right.

Pretty messed up when you need a real estate attorney to hunt on state land.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

shaffe48b said:


> I might need to. If I was just jumping across to run a dog I might take more chance. But in the next year or two I'll be setting bear baits and stands. Seems like if I'm using the area that intensively it won't go not noticed so I'd better be somewhat right.
> 
> Pretty messed up when you need a real estate attorney to hunt on state land.


Make an offer to buy it and be done with the issue.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Make an offer to buy it and be done with the issue.


In all due respect, why would I buy a corner so I can hunt on public land?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

shaffe48b said:


> In all due respect, why would I buy a corner so I can hunt on public land?


To be legal.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> To be legal.


I dont know if it's legal or not. Pretty sure I could do it without ever stepping on private land. 

Suppose I need a real estate attorney. Of course I wouldn't if there weren't land owners out there resorting to the most extreme to the point of being hilarious means to keep people off public land. Maybe I wouldn't have a problem in michigan. I probably wouldn't. But in a world where people have no ethical boundaries whatsoever....but they dont get away with this crap the way they do in Wyoming thank heavens.


I'll add the main thing in michigan I've experienced are landowners trying to bully and harass hunters in adjacent properties where there is clear legal access. So I wouldn't put this corner crossing process past them.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

shaffe48b said:


> I dont know if it's legal or not. Pretty sure I could do it without ever stepping on private land.
> 
> Suppose I need a real estate attorney. Of course I wouldn't if there weren't land owners out there resorting to the most extreme to the point of being hilarious means to keep people off public land. Maybe I wouldn't have a problem in michigan. I probably wouldn't. But in a world where people have no ethical boundaries whatsoever....but they dont get away with this crap the way they do in Wyoming thank heavens.
> 
> I'll add the main thing in michigan I've experienced are landowners trying to bully and harass hunters in adjacent properties where there is clear legal access. So I wouldn't put this corner crossing process past them.


Can you cross at the corner post without crossing above private land? I’ve found that asking for hunting permission is pretty easy. I do not get upset when told no. Have you asked the private land owners if you can cross at their corner post? It would seem like an easy thing to accomplish.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Can you cross at the corner post without crossing above private land? I’ve found that asking for hunting permission is pretty easy. I do not get upset when told no. Have you asked the private land owners if you can cross at their corner post? It would seem like an easy thing to accomplish.


How far above private land do I need to be? I'm still young enough to jump. Never pole vulted but I could pick it up.

The problem with asking (beyond the very principle of it) is if they say no then they can now say that they told me no which isn't going to help my case if there is ambiguity. If they say no is it going to make a difference with what I do? No not if I can help it.

No I'll figure it out. Better to have your facts straight. What I've found is many land owners are going to harass you even when you are 100 percent legal with no ambiguity whatsoever. So the question of whether I need my facts straight about corners I guess I've answered my own question


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

shaffe48b said:


> How far above private land do I need to be? I'm still young enough to jump. Never pole vulted but I could pick it up.
> 
> The problem with asking (beyond the very principle of it) is if they say no then they can now say that they told me no which isn't going to help my case if there is ambiguity. If they say no is it going to make a difference with what I do? No not if I can help it.
> 
> No I'll figure it out. Better to have your facts straight. What I've found is many land owners are going to harass you even when you are 100 percent legal with no ambiguity whatsoever. So the question of whether I need my facts straight about corners I guess I've answered my own question


You do realize landowner rights do extend well above property lines don’t you? I have been granted permission to hunt on so many properties I’ve lost count. Since i moved in 2015 i left behind 1,000s of acres but i already have been granted permission to well over 1,000 acres since that relocation. I’m a good neighbor so I do not have issues with any of my neighbors. Asking for permission is easy and so is accepting no for an answer. Try it.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Cork Dust said:


> Again, that depends on a water body by water body basis, if there is an access corridor on the lake, then the parcel is available for public use. Keep in mind that most of these water bodies in the U.P. are soft water lakes, with very limited inherent ability to buffer shifts in pH that occur when free CO2 increase from additional nutrient inputs. Man brings N and P increases via his presence and activities... this has been documented even in high alpine lakes in northern Italy tied to Roman armies marching through, huge spikes in nitrogen and phosphours that altered the phytoplankton arrays and water chemistry. This occurred over the course of a few weeks of altered nutrient inflows, now extrapolate that to handful of cabins with tile fields or outhouses added to the shore...is that worth the increased tax dollars?
> 
> The other interesting concomitant impact is that, as pH falls in these lakes the solubility of mercury and other heavy metals coming-in from atmospheric fallout goes up. Simply look at the mercury warnings on U.P. lakes and rivers for countless examples of this impact...Hg levels in fish higher than comparable lakes near metropolitan areas... C. Kerfoot and J. Bohr published a couple of studies documenting this.


So, you're not familiar with these properties?


allegiance said:


> Ive asked a local CO this very question here in the UP. He didn't give me a definite yes or no answer. Told me that I'd more than likely be fine to corner cross, but it was possible that someone could try to prosecute.  I walked out of the local DNR office even more confused then when i went in.....


Well job done then. lol


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> You do realize landowner rights do extend well above property lines don’t you? I have been granted permission to hunt on so many properties I’ve lost count. Since i moved in 2015 i left behind 1,000s of acres but i already have been granted permission to well over 1,000 acres since that relocation. I’m a good neighbor so I do not have issues with any of my neighbors. Asking for permission is easy and so is accepting no for an answer. Try it.


Ok how many feet above the property lines do they have rights to? To what extent do they have legal recourse to stop me from taking a single step over their property without ever touching it?

I have permission to millions of acres that belong to all of us. And I won't ask some entitled SOB land owner permission to use it when I dont have to. And no, I'm not taking no for an answer until I have to.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

shaffe48b said:


> Ok how many feet above the property lines do they have rights to? To what extent do they have legal recourse to stop me from taking a single step over their property without ever touching it?
> 
> I have permission to millions of acres that belong to all of us. And I won't ask some entitled SOB land owner permission to use it when I dont have to. And no, I'm not taking no for an answer until I have to.


It sounds like you may be within your rights and you may be taken to court to prove it. Never hurts to talk it over with the adjacent land owner(s) first. I wouldn't mention bear baits though. If there is an established trail that has been used for a fair amount of time your good to go as far as I understand Michigan law. You can also access land via a stream if there is one handy. Just stay below the high water mark. But that is going to make running bear baits a real pain (or adventure depending on your outlook).

Good luck whatever you decide.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Nostromo said:


> It sounds like you may be within your rights and you may be taken to court to prove it. Never hurts to talk it over with the adjacent land owner(s) first. I wouldn't mention bear baits though. If there is an established trail that has been used for a fair amount of time your good to go as far as I understand Michigan law. You can also access land via a stream if there is one handy. Just stay below the high water mark. But that is going to make running bear baits a real pain (or adventure depending on your outlook).
> 
> Good luck whatever you decide.



I doubt it will come to corner jumping to be honest. Only so many opportunities to jump corners and I'm not out to do it.

I didn't even care about this stuff until i drew a leftover antelope tag last year. I did know it was a limited access area but I wasn't too worried at that point. But the more i learned about the issue and what's behind it and thought about it more and more the more and more pissed I was. I ended up so angry i ended up not going. I didn't want to support them while i was only allowed to hunt 10 percent of the land available to me. I have two points now so eventually I'll go to a county i feel welcomed and not used.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

shaffe48b said:


> Ok how many feet above the property lines do they have rights to? To what extent do they have legal recourse to stop me from taking a single step over their property without ever touching it?
> 
> I have permission to millions of acres that belong to all of us. And I won't ask some entitled SOB land owner permission to use it when I dont have to. And no, I'm not taking no for an answer until I have to.


After much thought and more than one erased response I will merely say that before reading the above I had great empathy for your situation. Now, not so much. Why? The vast majority of us "entitled SOB land owners" worked hard for our hunting land and if others are like most of the landowners I know they went without many extras that others might take for granted to get what we have. 

In ten or twenty years if you play your card right, you too might become an entitled SOB landowner and once you are there, you get to pay the few thousand dollars a year in taxes like the rest of us entitled people.

By the way, in over thirty years of entitlement I have never, ever refused permission to anyone who has ever been gentleman enough to ask permission to either hunt on my land or cross it to reach state land. I have also unceremoniously booted every SOB who felt he was entitled to use my property without showing the little respect it required to ask permission. FM


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Forest Meister said:


> After much thought and more than one erased response I will merely say that before reading the above I had great empathy for your situation. Now, not so much. Why? The vast majority of us "entitled SOB land owners" worked hard for our hunting land and if others are like most of the landowners I know they went without many extras that others might take for granted to get what we have.
> 
> In ten or twenty years if you play your card right, you too might become an entitled SOB landowner and once you are there, you get to pay the few thousand dollars a year in taxes like the rest of us entitled people.
> 
> By the way, in over thirty years of entitlement I have never, ever refused permission to anyone who has ever been gentleman enough to ask permission to either hunt on my land or cross it to reach state land. I have also unceremoniously booted every SOB who felt he was entitled to use my property without showing the little respect it required to ask permission. FM


Because I'm (clearly, very, very clearly) not calling everyone who owns land an entitled sob land owner but the ones who are trying to keep me off public land in this case by stopping me from crossing a corner and in other cases by harassing hunters who dare hunt in a half mile of their property, property owners association etc. Or someone who thinks I owe them to ask them permission for not touching their property.

Either that or by lobbying their county Gov to take roads off of county maintenance, allow them to block two tracks, etc. 

Nothing you said is even slightly (not slightly) relevant to any of this. Why do I care that they sacrificed for a hunting property? Does that give then the right to stop me from hunting public land either for corner jumping or by manipulating local governments or by breaking the law by harassing surrounding hunters?

What's more, why do I care that they sacrificed for land period for them to hunt on period? Are these military members being killed and injured for everyone? Is this a hero working at a food kitchen without pay for years on end without thanks? That meister is sacrifice! No, apparently in this case everyone deserves great respect, deference.and empathy, even people who'd did nothing but buy something for themselves!

Should I have empathy for working hard and sacrificing to buy beer? Maybe I can sit on my porch and yell at everyone walking by on the street for disturbing my beer drinking. Heck, I sacrificed for this beer! What if someone dares to have their purse hangover the sidewalk but crosses over my property right of wat in the air without actually touching it!? How dare they, this is my hard earned beer! Everyone respect the beer!


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Floater said:


> It was the law that an individual could legally obtain an easement over other privately owned property to get access to a landlocked property. The law was change about 10 years ago. An individual can no longer legally force an easement to access landlocked property.


Not that I've heard. You can still take someone to court to gain access to your landlockd property.

Here is the law on easements in Michigan:



*Buy all or a portion of your neighbor's property.*
One of the surest and easiest ways to gain access to the roadway is to simply purchase the adjoining land which touches the roadway. Neighboring landowners are sometimes willing and able to sell all or the needed portion of land to allow for ingress and egress (the right to go to and from) to the landlocked property.

*Easement by Purchase*
Instead of outright purchase, landlocked property owners can purchase an easement across the neighboring property. An easement provides the legal right to use part of a property that he or she does not own. The most common known type of easement is a shared driveway. These easements are known as purchased easements or expressed easements. Neighbors are often times more willing to use this method because they keep ownership of the land and can use the property in the same manner as a secondary driveway for their own land. Often times, the offer to pay for a properly installed shared-driveway as an easement can result in the neighbor providing the easement at no cost.

*Easement by Necessity*
Michigan law recognizes a special easement which is created by an imposed court order, often times against the will of the neighbor. This easement, known as an easement by necessity, is imposed typically only when no other option is available. A common example is truly landlocked property. However, the need for such access must be extremely high. As the courts have explained, "mere convenience, or even reasonable necessity, will not be sufficient if there are alternative routes, even if these alternatives prove more difficult or more expensive." Courts will routiuely not grant such an easement when there remains any possible way to access a public roadway.

*Easement by Prescription*
An easement by prescription is a very old judically-recognized claim which results in a court recognizing that a trespasser's long-term use of property for a particular purpose should vest title to the trespasser. In Michigan, the use must, in legal terminology, be open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. In other words, the owner must have known or should have known about the trespasser and his continuous use for at least fifteen years and did nothing to stop the trespasser. Michigan also places a higher standard of proof than typical civil lawsuits. If even one aspect of the claim is unfulfilled, no right will be found.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Jiw275 said:


> Please help me out and point me to where I can find this law.
> 
> Thanks


Its in the land division act. 

equirements: (i) Has an area where a driveway provides vehicular access to an existing road or street and meets all applicable location standards of the state transportation department or county road commission under 1969 PA 200, MCL 247.321 to 247.329, and of the city or village, or has an area where a driveway can provide vehicular access to an existing road or street and meet all such applicable location standards. (ii) Is served by an existing easement that provides vehicular access to an existing road or street and that meets all applicable location standards of the state transportation department or county road commission under 1969 PA 200, MCL 247.321 to 247.329, and of the city or village, or can be served by a proposed easement that will provide vehicular access to an existing road or street and that will meet all such applicable location standards.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-Act-288-of-1967.pdf


----------



## Floater (Feb 8, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Not that I've heard. You can still take someone to court to gain access to your landlockd property.
> 
> Here is the law on easements in Michigan:
> 
> ...



See Tolksdorf v Griffith - Michigan Supreme Court - 2001:

Consequently, we agree with the Court of
Appeals panel in _McKeighan I, supra _at 808. "[T]he
primary benefit under the private roads act inures to the
landlocked private landowner seeking to open a private road on
the property of another . . . . [A]ny benefit to
the public at large is purely incidental and far too attenuated
to support a constitutional taking of private property." We
find that the private roads act is unconstitutional, because it
authorizes a taking of private property for a predominantly
private purpose.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Floater said:


> See Tolksdorf v Griffith - Michigan Supreme Court - 2001:
> 
> Consequently, we agree with the Court of
> Appeals panel in _McKeighan I, supra _at 808. "[T]he
> ...


This is an eminent domain case. Not the same as a simple easement to access your property. And, compensation is awarded to the land owner too.


----------



## Floater (Feb 8, 2003)

Do you know of any cases after Tolksdorf that allowed a private landowner to involuntarily acquire an access easement from another private landowner to get to landlocked property? I was advised that Tolksdorf stopped it but I would love to be wrong. We have some property we would pay to get to but were told it was an impossibility unless we could get the neighboring owner to voluntarily sell an easement to us. Sounds like you have experience with this.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I 


Floater said:


> Do you know of any cases after Tolksdorf that allowed a private landowner to involuntarily acquire an access easement from another private landowner to get to landlocked property? I was advised that Tolksdorf stopped it but I would love to be wrong. We have some property we would pay to get to but were told it was an impossibility unless we could get the neighboring owner to voluntarily sell an easement to us. Sounds like you have experience with this.


I know of one case for sure. Neighbors of mine. They eventually settled it though out of court. If they had not.done so, then the court would have.


----------



## Floater (Feb 8, 2003)

Could you get the name of their lawyer for me? THanks


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

I don't think it would be too hard to get right aways to access public land. We could use eminent domain. It wouldn't cost much to compensate them for a small strip of land in most areas since areas with most of the public land tend to be low dollar per acre anyways.

To be honest we would probably want to be judicious in places like michigan where we already have pretty good access and many right aways. We definitely need to be aggressive to combat attempts to close the right aways that already exist, to gate off two tracks, put up 'private lane' signs etc. even in Michigan. As far as I'm concerned in most cases where roads and two tracks already exist we the people need to be aggressive about maintaining the passageways and taking them back by eminent domain in cases they have been lost.

The thing is that most of the landowners in Michigan, wyoming or anywhere that this would impact already know who they are and the game they are playing. Time for them to lose that game.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

It sure sounds like welfare rat mentality to me. Someone thinking they are entitled to something they did not earn plus are too lazy to ask pretty well sums it up.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Adverse possession law worth studying if wanting to see how it affects both sides. 
Historically too , vs today..


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It sure sounds like welfare rat mentality to me. Someone thinking they are entitled to something they did not earn plus are too lazy to ask pretty well sums it up.



You must be referring to the landowners blocking access to the public land they didn't buy and don't pay taxes on, or in other words being entitled to something they didn't/don't/never did earn.

But in the end I certainly think we should end all right aways that already exist and not fight to keep them. That includes all roads and free ways. When we drive down the road or highway we can simply stop thousands of times at every single property line and ask permission to cross. Hopefully they don't tell us no it'll be a big turn around.

This also includes any power lines. How on earth did the power companies get these? No problem. We will merely need to each get permission from thousands of land owners before we turn on the lights.

We certainly wouldn't want to keep this situation where we can drive several hundred miles through rightaways in other people's property to our special vacation home and then put a gate across the road because me and my buddy own both sides. How do these landowners think they have the right to drive across everyone else's property and then block theirs? That would be downright socialist. Can't have it.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It sure sounds like welfare rat mentality to me. Someone thinking they are entitled to something they did not earn plus are too lazy to ask pretty well sums it up.


BTW this is gaslighting. Calling someone else 'entitled' when it is abundantly clear that the shoe is on the other foot.

Makes me wonder if you're yet another boomer calling yet another millennial 'entitled.'


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Where it proudly. The millennials are called the Entitlement Generation for good reason. There are even catchy songs about the entitlement generation.


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

It is not a matter of entitlement folks. You have rights and no one can deprive you of them unless you allow them too. If you have land you have a right to access it and use it. That may not mean you can build a road or run power to it. I know of a land locked forty that was private, surrounded by state land. The state denied the owner electricity, period. He could drive to it manage his timber, build on it or whatever but they would never give him an easement for power. 

Be assured the state will not allow private interests to prevent them from accessing state land when they deem it necessary. The gas and oil companies will not allow your private land to stop them either, because they have a right to their minerals. 

As far as getting to a state parcel that is surrounded by private land, you just need to find the person in state government who knows the correct information. If I didn`t get a satisfactory answer from DNR personal I would call the Attorney Generals office to get the answer. Keep searching and you out how to legally get to that parcel.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Wolverick said:


> It is not a matter of entitlement folks. You have rights and no one can deprive you of them unless you allow them too. If you have land you have a right to access it and use it. That may not mean you can build a road or run power to it. I know of a land locked forty that was private, surrounded by state land. The state denied the owner electricity, period. He could drive to it manage his timber, build on it or whatever but they would never give him an easement for power.
> 
> Be assured the state will not allow private interests to prevent them from accessing state land when they deem it necessary. The gas and oil companies will not allow your private land to stop them either, because they have a right to their minerals.
> 
> As far as getting to a state parcel that is surrounded by private land, you just need to find the person in state government who knows the correct information. If I didn`t get a satisfactory answer from DNR personal I would call the Attorney Generals office to get the answer. Keep searching and you out how to legally get to that parcel.





Forest Meister said:


> So much very accurate info intermingled with half facts and plain old hearsay that it boggles the mind! Talk to a GOOD real estate attorney for info that has any semblance of holding up when push comes to shove. FM


A quick read and I had to quote myself. Not being familiar where the property mentioned in your first paragraph is located or the exact situation involved but I suspect it may fall into the "half truth" category. I have heard several times that the SoM has denied people power line access, well...in my past life I was called on the carpet a couple of times by legislative aids because a constituent claimed to have been denied access for electricity. When the rest of the story came out they found they were only being told a half truth. Both times (and every other time I recall someone wanted power) they were told a ROW would be granted BUT the line would have to be buried. For various reason including aesthetics and creating defacto trails overhead lines were not going to be approved. To put into simple terms the difference between installing buried vs. overhead is often $$$$.00 vs. $$$$$.00. So, bottom line was that landowners not wanting to spend the money were trying a political end run. 

Also, I sure wish your second paragraph was more of a fact than a half fact. If it were a fact the state would not be auctioning off manageable areas of land a couple times a year and they would have access sites on more up north lakes. FM


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Yep called it. 

And you know what is most ironic is I've heard that back when the wwii generation owned the land you could pretty much hunt where you wanted without permission in most cases. Ironically it was the boomers running around doing this. Yet when the boomers now own property they are not only shutting down the property they actually own, but trying to shut down every piece of public land they can as well.

My video does a lot to explain why some people act and think the way they do.

1. It shows using hard facts why and how making it ahead and succeeding at life was extremely easier for baby boomers than for either the recent generations or for those before.

2. It suggests (with much accuracy) how while their ancestors set them up for success leaving them with a great country, they have spent their entire lives taking without repaying....literally. They are now passing the burned out carcass to us: trillions of debt, impossible inequality, disappearing middle class, destroyed environment, and incredible health care costs. 

Put another way, while costs skyrocketed during their generation (most of it going into them), they created little to no growth or value to pay for it.

3. They now morally justify themselves by saying they deserve what they have and more whether they've actually earned it or own it or not and that younger generations are, ironically, the entitled ones who need to work harder or gravel to them for permission to have something that already belongs to them.

Just think, one of the few things our generation has left that wasn't totally raped and pillaged by the previous generations is what remains of our public land. Yes that bit of land that they couldn't earn enough to develop. But according to some of the previous generations we owe them even these unused parcels. We need to ask them permission or be denied by them to use even that! Apparently everything belongs to them whether it does or not and yet we are the entitled ones! They have the rights to close down roads and have private privileges access to public land. They rant and rave and say they deserve it. They think they should personally control access to government property. Yet we are entitled! They get to close down the rightaways that they themselves use!


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

shaffe48b said:


> Yep called it.
> 
> And you know what is most ironic is I've heard that back when the wwii generation owned the land you could pretty much hunt where you wanted without permission in most cases. Ironically it was the boomers running around doing this. Yet when the boomers now own property they are not only shutting down the property they actually own, but trying to shut down every piece of public land they can as well.
> 
> ...


You're riding off in multiple directions here....Much as I do...L.o.l..

You must be a millennial. When you gain equity and net worth exceeds debt and you're fully independent you'll perceive your yard a bit different , maybe..

Landlocked land is a separate issue than access impeded on. 
And that is not a new game.

Historically (and like it or not that's where we can start) it was the splitting up of land that crated later contention over access.
We have that here , but greater examples exist out West.

Caution has always been stressed when looking at a landlocked parcel due to access.
And access does not mean right of way.
The legal gymnastics are there , evolving through history. Lots to read , but foot traffic vs right of way are again very different topics. Though related!

I see your point of feeling denied proper legit access to landlocked public parcels.
It's a reflex to expect the state to have seen to it.
But that takes us back to not only the prior division of property , but to how the state acquired the property.
Once upon a time , a lot of farms and lands went "bust". As did many owners (well mortgaged owners).
Between climate ,poor soil choices in some cases ,the great depression ect. lands ended up in the states hands.
Neighbors handshake access previously making access un questioned evaporated (understandably?) 

It's changed now but can still entail costly or prolonged legal battles to get a r.o.w. on the wrong parcel still .
And I'd never buy expecting to win one.

Blaming a previous generation does not change the challenge today. But challenging the law and having history defined is part of contesting access on both sides.

Why you feel private landowners have the upper hand may contrast with the courts view. Or in the right case perhaps align with the courts view.
Gains (?) were made out West in varied degrees of effectiveness but took more than an individual complaint.
In that/those action(s) was age of participants/generation an issue?
Was age of those seeking access a term of condition of involvement or of qualification?
Was age of landowners around contended parcels the reason contention existed/exists?

Rest assured, were it a millennial alone force on the side of those seeking access the results would not be what they are.
Don't play that card here in Michigan either. You'll only come across as a complainant.
An effective network often involved a cross section of ages and disciplines.
Because no one has it all inherent in knowledge or experience.
And in court it's fact , not age.

The standard of living has increased by about four times in a hundred years.
What and who drove that , and the luxury of leisure to follow is part of how we ended up with enough recreation time to worry about who owns what , and where to step around a corner post of some former owners loss.

Under 40 acres and the wrong seller/buyer can make things worse.
Today we know to confirm access by r.o.w. before purchase. 

I like access to state land too.
But if a landlocked parcel fell into the states hands for delinquent taxes behind me I'm not sure I'd welcome the public through my yard/property to come and go from it.
Heck , I don't really enjoy the lost vehicles and folks that are just curious that show up now....
Would you?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Waif said:


> You're riding off in multiple directions here....Much as I do...L.o.l..
> 
> You must be a millennial. When you gain equity and net worth exceeds debt and you're fully independent you'll perceive your yard a bit different , maybe..
> 
> ...


I think this is less generational and more standing up to someone being kind of a jerk


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

shaffe48b said:


> Yep called it.
> 
> And you know what is most ironic is I've heard that back when the wwii generation owned the land you could pretty much hunt where you wanted without permission in most cases. Ironically it was the boomers running around doing this. Yet when the boomers now own property they are not only shutting down the property they actually own, but trying to shut down every piece of public land they can as well.
> 
> ...


One day millennials will stop believing cartoons are real. At least we hope so.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

sureshot006 said:


> I think this is less generational and more standing up to someone being kind of a jerk


I try not to be a jerk...

A major online retailer has a proprietary map app for delivery drivers.
Proprietary meaning top secret and I can't change it by calling various company folks.
Oh , but I changed it. By finding their source of intel....Joining it and changing data.
Other mapping outfits simply allowed me to change their maps prior.

I won't go into detail as to why multiple mapping systems show a road through my yard where one never existed. But there it is / was shown.
Delivery vehicles in my back yard you would need to see to believe.
A head scratcher for them ,and myself.
Kind of interesting how far some one will follow a device's directions on faith before reaching an impasse. (!)
Yes , I'm nice about the confusion to the drivers , but not impressed with a conglomerate that don't care for private landowners concerns ,and their hired drivers time. All because of a mapping system with faults the company refuses to acknowledge or correct on their own after being informed of incorrect data.
They paid for it and slapped their label on it , but deny responsibility for it...While forcing it on their hires.
Good thing my septic tank is not where they end up.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Waif said:


> I try not to be a jerk...
> 
> A major online retailer has a proprietary map app for delivery drivers.
> Proprietary meaning top secret and I can't change it by calling various company folks.
> ...


For clarity I wasn't referring to you but I think you know that.

The whole thing about landowners worrying about a guy trying to access state land by crossing at a corner... it's kinda ridiculous. It's nothing but the private landowners attempting to keep it for themselves, or at least minimize the pressure on their "preserve". I get it from a selfish standpoint. But its still ridiculous. 

Arguing generation against generation is silly too. Different times in history... it is a little frustrating to see my SS contributions increase with no expectation to ever get even close to the return of the previous generation, or my healthcare cost skyrocket, but life isn't fair.

All you gotta do on Google is report an error and they fix it. Not sure about other software. Probably a bigger headache like you experienced.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

shaffe48b said:


> Yep called it.
> 
> And you know what is most ironic is I've heard that back when the wwii generation owned the land you could pretty much hunt where you wanted without permission in most cases. Ironically it was the boomers running around doing this. Yet when the boomers now own property they are not only shutting down the property they actually own, but trying to shut down every piece of public land they can as well.
> 
> ...


You almost had me feeling sorry for you....almost


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It sure sounds like welfare rat mentality to me. Someone thinking they are entitled to something they did not earn plus are too lazy to ask pretty well sums it up.


Like the landowner that won't allow access, didn't pay for the land, doesn't pay taxes and gets to use it like he is the sole owner?


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

sureshot006 said:


> Arguing generation against generation is silly too. Different times in history...


It's not generational per say. It's just since most of the landowners are older in general most of the crazy ones are older too. Then their age and generation affects how they self justify their craziness for those that are in fact crazy.

But no doubt in terms of the crazy landowners a lot of the cub bears are already learning from crazy mama and crazy papa bear. Conversely there are a lot of aged people fighting for public land access.

What we need are more activists like Randy Newberg (who is definitely old) out west but here in michigan.

Also I need to stop b####ing on a forum and become more active in the organizations fighting these things. I'm definitely going to start looking into it. Do something about it. This issue definitely gets my goat.


----------



## shaffe48b (Oct 22, 2019)

Trophy Specialist said:


> You almost had me feeling sorry for you....almost


Bud. No one asked you to feel sorry for them. Just stating the facts.


----------

