Should “Corner Crossing” be Legal?

The owner of a Wyoming ranch is appealing a judge’s ruling that “corner crossing” is legal. Corner crossing is the practice of going from one parcel of “public” land to another via privately owned land. The plaintiffs in the case relied on the Unlawful Inclosure Act of 1885, which prevents a private landowner from blocking public access to “public” land.

In 2021, the rancher sued four hunters for trespassing. They never stepped foot on his land. They had flown over it, and this, the rancher claims, violates his property rights. He is wrong, and so is the judge.

The judge acknowledged that the rancher owns the airspace above his land, but that doesn’t entitle him to exclude others because “property rights come with restrictions.” This is the kind of issue that arises when property rights are improperly understood and applied. If property rights come with restrictions, then the right to property is merely a temporary permission that can be revoked when it is convenient.

There should be no such thing as “public” property. If government divested itself of the land in question, this would be a non-issue. But that is only a minor point in this case.

The right to property means the freedom to produce, use, and trade material values. This includes the freedom to exclude others as the owner chooses. Other property owners may use their land as they choose, so long as they do not interfere with others doing the same. Flying over another’s property may or may not interfere with the landowner’s use of his property.

Flying over the land fifty feet above the ground and spooking grazing cattle would be an interference. Flying over the same land at 25,000 feet bothers nobody.

Claiming that a property owner owns the airspace above his land is absurd. If this were the case, then planes could not fly over any private land without the owner’s permission. Satellites could not fly over any private land, even if they are outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. A proper understanding and application of property rights renders this entire issue moot.