Wyoming Corner Crossing defense fund

[deepnsteep]

This case will not solve the issue no matter how these fellas are charged. It's in criminal court so they will be found guilty or not guilty no precedent will be set either way...if they are found guilty 50K won't cover the appeal process to the next court level. If anything all this will do is bring attention to the problem and the state legislation will draw up a law to make it illegal.

I think that's why BHA was so quick to get involved great PR with a case that will make no difference. All upside for them.

I hope I am wrong but I don't see this case changing anything.

Dave Wilms did a really good job explaining this on the Meateater podcast this week. I understood that this is a misdemeanor criminal trespass which means it will first be heard in circuit Court. If this is dropped or they win I think you're right about precedent. If they lose, they can appeal to district court and on up the line if need be, which probably means that precedent could be set.

Legislation could sure come up but it has in the past and hasn't gone anywhere. Even in the outside chance they could get something passed it would just add another layer of complexity to the existing law.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Mike Islander]

It's preposterous to claim that one person moving their foot in the air along the edge of your land violates your property rights in any meaningful way. This is about stealing public access from public property. Our property. Keep working on this and the people will eventually win.

If Rancher Bob was denied corner crossing because he wasn't allowed to move his foot over a tiny chunk of public land, Rancher Bob's head would explode.

 

[wind gypsy]

This case will not solve the issue no matter how these fellas are charged. It's in criminal court so they will be found guilty or not guilty no precedent will be set either way...if they are found guilty 50K won't cover the appeal process to the next court level. If anything all this will do is bring attention to the problem and the state legislation will draw up a law to make it illegal.

I think that's why BHA was so quick to get involved great PR with a case that will make no difference. All upside for them.

I hope I am wrong but I don't see this case changing anything.

If nothing else, it's one county with a shit load of checkerboard that is going to have to figure out in a more definitive way where they stand on corner crossing. If the county drops charges or loses, it's probably for a good reason and I would think other counties will take note.

 

[highfastflyer]

If nothing else, it's one county with a shit load of checkerboard that is going to have to figure out in a more definitive way where they stand on corner crossing. If the county drops charges or loses, it's probably for a good reason and I would think other counties will take note.

Actually, this is the last hold out County which even prosecutes it. After 2004 when the Albany county case was lost by the landowners and won by the hunter, most counties stopped prosecuting it. This County attorney made it public for several years her stance and who she was in bed with, now she can deal with the consequences of her rich bedfellows. Any sportsmen in Carbon County need to remember this come election time.

 

[rob86jeep]

It's preposterous to claim that one person moving their foot in the air along the edge of your land violates your property rights in any meaningful way. This is about stealing public access from public property. Our property. Keep working on this and the people will eventually win.

If Rancher Bob was denied corner crossing because he wasn't allowed to move his foot over a tiny chunk of public land, Rancher Bob's head would explode.

It seems like all pro public land people become bigots when they buy some pivot property. There is ZERO chance that a person against corner crossing is against it because of "private property rights." They're against it because they're trying to prevent someone from accessing public land. End of story.

It makes me sick to think American's would try to stop access to public land, but it happens.

 

[dirtytough]

After reading how many people in the SM thread want to limit non res even more, I’m surprised any non res would contribute to this.

 

[Gobbler36]

How is this progressing?

 

[BuzzH]

After reading how many people in the SM thread want to limit non res even more, I’m surprised any non res would contribute to this.

It impacts 22 states and 16.4 million acres...for starters.

 

[BuzzH]

How is this progressing?

Moving forward.

April court date, and the news/media have been all over it. Local TV stations aired a story not long ago, over 65K raised for the defense.

The folks involved have been in contact with the 4 hunters at least weekly if not more often.

All 4 of them have attorneys, retainers are paid, and in a holding pattern. Will keep this up to date as it plays out.

 

[TXCO]

Are any private landowners arguing they can access private land via corner crossing? That would be an interesting wrinkle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squincher]

It impacts 22 states and 16.4 million acres...for starters.

Only if it ends up in federal court. If it stays in Wyoming state courts, it only impacts Wyoming.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

After reading how many people in the SM thread want to limit non res even more, I’m surprised any non res would contribute to this.

Makes sense to me, not being able to access public land in WY affects non resident hunters too. WY resident hunter’s campaign against DIY non resident hunters is a separate issue.

 

[KHNC]

Only if it ends up in federal court. If it stays in Wyoming state courts, it only impacts Wyoming.

Be easy on buzz , hes still learning.

 

[BuzzH]

Only if it ends up in federal court. If it stays in Wyoming state courts, it only impacts Wyoming.

There are lots of discussions happening right now by a lot of influential people on where this may end up.

In the meantime other states are paying close attention to this case in Wyoming. Someone and some state had to be first in taking this on...may as well be Wyoming.

We are also being contacted nearly every day by the media, attorneys, and many other interested parties willing to get involved and assist in any way they can.

The level of support has been swift, not only for the 4 hunters caught up in this mess, but by those willing to get involved to fight for access to public lands.

What happens with this case in Wyoming is going to influence the other 21 states and how and where this issue is solved.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Only if it ends up in federal court. If it stays in Wyoming state courts, it only impacts Wyoming.

Yeah...I dont think they will even be charged in WY. It will get thrown out. No charges no chance for appeal.

 

[Skerhunter]

Yeah...I dont think they will even be charged in WY. It will get thrown out. No charges no chance for appeal.

Very possible, but will it lead to an increase in crossings in wyoming? The guys that are on the fence (pun intended) about it, will start hopping all over (bringing another case or just opening up more access). I think the publicity (outside of hunting community) from it has been a huge win as well and could be a great step forward in settling this debate once and for all (i.e. new regs).

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah...I dont think they will even be charged in WY. It will get thrown out. No charges no chance for appeal.

Well, pretty easy to throw speculation at the wall...but those involved are hearing its going to trial. I would like to think the charges will be dropped, but I think the CA talked herself into a corner. Surely didn't expect the publicity its getting I assure you.

Buckle up...

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Well, pretty easy to throw speculation at the wall...but those involved are hearing its going to trial. I would like to think the charges will be dropped, but I think the CA talked herself into a corner. Surely didn't expect the publicity its getting I assure you.

Buckle up...

I hope they get charged so they can appeal. Based on history of these cases.. I just don't think anybody in the WY goverment wants to open that can of worms. Hence the letter that is on the books now.

How many levels of appeal would they have to go thru to set precident in just WY, 3 maybe 4....so on timeline what is that 4 to 6yrs? I am not that familiar with the WY court system.

 

[deepnsteep]

You should go listen to the Meateater episode on corner crossing and then this one of Your Mountain podcast. These guys are the guys that were on Meateater and go into more detail in their podcast.

Your Mountain - The Unintended Consequences of Wyoming's Corner Crossing Case

Dave and Nephi take a look at Wyoming's corner crossing case through a different lens. Legal issues aside, they discuss the possible policy outcomes of the case, and how setting a court precedent could backfire for hunters. Other topics include: how to increase public land access; how they first...

podcasts.google.com

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

I hope they get charged so they can appeal. Based on history of these cases.. I just don't think anybody in the WY goverment wants to open that can of worms. Hence the letter that is on the books now.

How many levels of appeal would they have to go thru to set precident in just WY, 3 maybe 4....so on timeline what is that 4 to 6yrs? I am not that familiar with the WY court system.

No, not 3-4 levels of appeal to get to the WYSSC from what I understand.