Given that OnX makes its money off of facilitating access to recreational land, this report was surprisingly fair in describing land-owner concerns.
I am pretty strongly for access to public land, but even I could appreciate the concerns re: bad apples being encouraged by this particular case. That is, if you already have an issue with people illegally accessing your land, then opening the door for more people to attempt to access public land by passing through some mathematically precise point in space does in fact invite people who aren't so careful to cross near the corner. I've seen enough braided trails and "no motorized vehicle" signs busted and mashed into tire tracks to believe that concern. And the reality is that all it takes to do irreparable harm is 1 bad actor, because they can do so much damage.
All of that said, I think it's vitally important that western states do something to make it impossible to sue a trespasser for whatever loss of value you perceive when the public land you thought you locked up remains public.
I can see suing a trespasser for the cost of reclaiming a social trail that they happened to get caught on. But I cannot see suing a trespasser for 25% of the value of a $31M real estate transaction, because it turned out that a bogus legal theory about "owning" land that's not actually in the deed is, in fact, bogus. If the landowner can make a compelling case that the previous owner, or the facilitating real estate agents, convinced the new owner of that bogus theory, then sure, sue them for the lost "value". But not the guys who went out of their way to avoid causing any real (in the legal sense) damage.
I think it is more important to make sure that people can access public land, than it is to protect the wealthy landowners who are using their multiple plots of private property to block access to public land.
These aren't poor innocent bystanders whose land is being ruined. It's wealthy people trying to steal access to our public property. Fuck them.
Granted, but neither is it feasible to locate, much less pursue, every person who contributed to the social trail existing.
I'd recommend you read OnX's report. They provide two examples of how the land owner is being harmed, although only one of them ("Bad Apples") seems valid.
Ultimately, the concept of American exceptionalism (that is, the belief apparently held by every American that they, personally, justify an exception to the rules, but not anyone else) needs to die. That national myth is the greatest obstacle to a viable American implementation of e.g. the UK's freedom to roam. Until then, the land owner has (and should have) the right to protect their property.
Years ago (ca 2009), I was training for the Laramie Enduro (now known as the Laramie Range Epic) mountain bike race up around Happy Jack, about 90 miles east of the ranch that kicked off this whole thread, when I encountered a no-motorized-trail sign, snapped off at its base, pressed into the mud in tire tracks left by car- or truck-sized tires.
I've been skiing up in wilderness areas in the Snowy Range (that is, the range that Elk Mountain is the northern terminus of), and had to deal with junked up snow from snowmobiles. Now, damage to snow is sort of ephemeral, but damage to the underlying trail because there's insufficient snow coverage?
In either of these cases, what recourse does the land owner/manager have? Do our courts really just "whelp, sucks to be you"? I really get how a few bad actors can really mess up an area. Because of that, I really do believe that if the law came down very publicly like the hammer of god on a few of those bad actors, the ones with the rotten luck to get caught, then people in general would be better stewards of the land.
I think limiting damages to real damages (like trail mediation), and excluding legal fees, means that the would-be plaintiff, bringing a civil suit, should have to weigh whether or not the cost of a suit is worth winning the actual cost of removing a trail. If its 12 feet of trail near the corner, its not worth it.
I recall an incident in Colorado, in 2000, where a radio station told its listeners about an unofficial gathering of off-roaders. Several hundred people showed up in trucks and jeeps and things, drove off road on federal land to get to private land, then tore up 7 acres of wetlands before leaving. A cursory googling of the KBPI mudfest incident didn't reveal the outcome, but at most a dozen people (out of ~200 vehicles) actually saw charges filed. If I was personally facing the remediation of 7 acres of wetlands, I'd be selling out every jackass who came with me and didn't get caught. That's the power of throwing the full cost on the unlucky one who got caught.
I am pretty strongly for access to public land, but even I could appreciate the concerns re: bad apples being encouraged by this particular case. That is, if you already have an issue with people illegally accessing your land, then opening the door for more people to attempt to access public land by passing through some mathematically precise point in space does in fact invite people who aren't so careful to cross near the corner. I've seen enough braided trails and "no motorized vehicle" signs busted and mashed into tire tracks to believe that concern. And the reality is that all it takes to do irreparable harm is 1 bad actor, because they can do so much damage.
All of that said, I think it's vitally important that western states do something to make it impossible to sue a trespasser for whatever loss of value you perceive when the public land you thought you locked up remains public.
I can see suing a trespasser for the cost of reclaiming a social trail that they happened to get caught on. But I cannot see suing a trespasser for 25% of the value of a $31M real estate transaction, because it turned out that a bogus legal theory about "owning" land that's not actually in the deed is, in fact, bogus. If the landowner can make a compelling case that the previous owner, or the facilitating real estate agents, convinced the new owner of that bogus theory, then sure, sue them for the lost "value". But not the guys who went out of their way to avoid causing any real (in the legal sense) damage.