What this doesn't mention is that when this land was set out the government decided that x% would be for public uses and-- not having any better criteria in mind-- whomever got tasked with doing the layout just checkerboarded the parcels. This creates a significant mess, especially when you want to own a large piece of land and not have it contain random public chunks-- which you'll either need to be an ass at restricting people's access to or have your own privacy invaded by people traveling to and using them (as well as potential legal liability).
My understanding is that some land owners have had some degree of success purchasing additional pieces of land and trading them with the BLM to make their own property more contiguous.
In any case, I see posters here assuming that the land owners like this situation... but I know for a fact that many don't and would prefer their property not be discontinuous.
You don't generally locate in these regions if your concept of privacy allows for strangers 1000 feet away.
For this kind of privacy you go to Wyoming or Montana for--- think more along the lines of:
"No stranger without an expectation of getting shot at can see me at my home." The property you use is surrounded by a large buffer zone that no one should ever be in and the nearest part of that buffer zone is so far from any of your structures that they can hardly be seen from it.
This isn't to say that the corner cross itself is the problem. The people complaining about the corner crossings presumably don't want people entering the islanded public land that takes them deep into their property. Because then you've gotta worry if someone lurking around in that land is just using it peacefully, or if they're gonna cause you trouble. (which can also be accidental, like starting a wildfire or an errant gun shot from hunting hitting something you care about).
Another way to look at is like this: The price of a bay area home (say $2m) can buy you 2000 acres in Montana. At those sorts of prices it's completely reasonable to purchase a bunch of surplus property for no other purpose than preserving your isolation, access to nature, and piece of mind. Why be a NIMBY when you can just own all the property where third-party activity might adversely impact you? If you've gone to that trouble, then it's understandable that you might be be irritated by people invading that privacy-- particularly when they have to technically trespass to do so.
My understanding is that some land owners have had some degree of success purchasing additional pieces of land and trading them with the BLM to make their own property more contiguous.
In any case, I see posters here assuming that the land owners like this situation... but I know for a fact that many don't and would prefer their property not be discontinuous.