Wyoming Corner Crossing defense fund

[hflier]

You should look up the history on why the west is a checkerboard pattern. I’ll give away the ending, it’s not people buying parcels to purposely lock up public lands, it was policies of the federal government.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Ron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[couesbitten]

Donation made, please keep us updated and thank you to those that are taking on this fight.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

They are getting free land that belongs to US tax payers, not really concerned about their issues if they keep blocking folks from it. If they provide walk in access then we can look at those issues.

I understand now. You're saying that if a piece of private property is sold that makes access to adjoining public land difficult/impossible, that the person buying the property has unfair access to the public land. I can see this argument.

Your suggesting that if the land owner provided walk-in access that you'd be willing to partner to maintain the easement, and I like this approach. However, if the land owner does not want to provide an easement, you may directly/indirectly support trespassing across the land?

It seems to me that the government needs to settle this situation by mandating easements to access the public lands on existing properties and paying the land owners fair market value for the easement acreage plus an annual maintenance subsidy. However, some may see this as a type of emminent domain overreach that infringes on the rights of private landowners.

No really good solution here that i can predict.

 

[Baddog]

Corner crossing doesn’t need an easement

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Corner crossing doesn’t need an easement

Apologies, but I don't follow. Is this an opinion or a legal precedent?

I am considering buying property in either MT or WY in the future, and I'm very interested to understand the traditions vs. legalities.

 

[realunlucky]

I understand now. You're saying that if a piece of private property is sold that makes access to adjoining public land difficult/impossible, that the person buying the property has unfair access to the public land. I can see this argument.

Your suggesting that if the land owner provided walk-in access that you'd be willing to partner to maintain the easement, and I like this approach. However, if the land owner does not want to provide an easement, you may directly/indirectly support trespassing across the land?

It seems to me that the government needs to settle this situation by mandating easements to access the public lands on existing properties and paying the land owners fair market value for the easement acreage plus an annual maintenance subsidy. However, some may see this as a type of emminent domain overreach that infringes on the rights of private landowners.

No really good solution here that i can predict.

I think that's the entire point of this-- they shouldn't be allowed to lock out the public. If it was the other way could they be denied a easement? Hell no if it was the most appropriate access to the property. If that's the standard how can they deny access to something that isn't theirs to say yes or no too.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Bighorner]

I'm glad to see BHA putting support behind this.

In the state of Iowa, game wardens have jurisdiction over the entire state with authority to enforce all game, fish, and criminal laws, similar to a state trooper.

What is the ultimate desired outcome here for public land hunters? Is it for property owners to be required to install/maintain a permanent legal easement to the public areas? If so, and I'm simply playing devil's advocate here so don't freak out, who is responsible for any damage, vandlization, or other potential issues associated with the easement? For example, if its a rancher that has cows, sheep, etc..., who is responsible if gates are left open or fences are damaged? If guys cross the easement with horses, mules, or vehicles, who has to repair any ruts or address potential erosion or other problems? What about littering? I know we'd all like to think that hunters would be respectful, but if you've been to any public hunting or fishing area you've seen the empty shell casings, trash, fishing line, aluminum cans, etc..., that are left in some areas.

The first thing property owners are going to ask is who is responsible for these types of issues with any proposed easement, and if the answer is the land owner, things will not go in favor of the public land hunters I'm guessing.

That argument dosent hold up. I will am the first one to be disgusted by litter and ruts, but it just isn't grounds to deny public access in the case of corner crossing. Corner crossing has its roots in not physically touching the private property, only the air space. There goes the ruts. As far as litter, it dosent close the rest of millions of acres of private ground. If you see litter pick it up. The individual is responsible for damage to private property. The same way I am responsible for sliding off a road into a private fence. That risk is there but we dont close roads for it. The bottom line is all the what if s should not stop access anymore than we should shut down highways for those same reasons.

 

[realunlucky]

Apologies, but I don't follow. Is this an opinion or a legal precedent?

I am considering buying property in either MT or WY in the future, and I'm very interested to understand the traditions vs. legalities.

There's no legal precedent in Wyoming. Traditionally it's been allowed, now some land owners are leveraging thier political influence to try and lock public lands up. That's why this moment is key timeframe for a legal definition.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I think that's the entire point of this-- they shouldn't be allowed to lock out the public. If it was the other way could they be denied a easement? Hell no if it was the most appropriate access to the property. If that's the standard how can they deny access to something that isn't theirs to say yes or no too.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

There's no legal precedent in Wyoming. Traditionally it's been allowed, now some land owners are leveraging thier political influence to try and lock public lands up. That's why this moment is key timeframe for a legal definition.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

In that case, I agree with you. If unscrupulous folks are intentionally seeking to block access to public land, then the government needs to step in and mandate easements. Its as simple as that. If so, then there wouldn't be any need for interpretation by law enforcement. You either use the easement or your trespassing.

 

[wapitibob]

Wait wait hold up? I thought two active guys very knowledgeable in WY on the other thread said it “won’t happen in Wyoming”

Now a guy/guys get a ticket yet they still push the narrative “they did something else wrong” to get said ticket.


Bottom line, jump the corner, be prepared to get ticketed.

I've read every post, nobody said these 4 did anything wrong to get a ticket. They crossed from public to public, at a marked corner, with no intent to hunt private.

 

[Bighorner]

It's a small distinction, but it's important. Corner crossing is not pushing for an easement. It is pushing for the court to recognize that crossing over air space is not harming the land owner and certainly not harming the landowner more than the harm of excluding to general public to public land. Forcing an easement is eminent domain and most people think that is not the preferred route to settle things.

 

[wapitibob]

It's a small distinction, but it's important. Corner crossing is not pushing for an easement. It is pushing for the court to recognize that crossing over air space is not harming the land owner and certainly not harming the landowner more than the harm of excluding to general public to public land. Forcing an easement is eminent domain and most people think that is not the preferred route to settle things.

Correct, and this case is the perfect example to test in court. You can plainly see the landowner is trying to keep public off public land, and crossing at this specific corner does not damage nor infringe on said landowners use of his property.

 

[bluumoon]

I chipped in, let’s keep this thread towards the top.

 

[dieselchessy]

All western states need section line easements like Alaska has. But that ship has sailed.
I think a 10’ wide corner easement for all adjoining public land corners should be on the table. 5’ each side of the corner.

These landowners are fighting for the public land they have land locked, not the 5’ triangle of their land.

I understand it. Land adjoining public you have to yourself is much more interesting than land adjoining trafficked public land.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Correct, and this case is the perfect example to test in court. You can plainly see the landowner is trying to keep public off public land, and crossing at this specific corner does not damage nor infringe on said landowners use of his property.

If public to public than I agree with you 100% and no ticket should've been issued. In addition, if the landowner is chaining up public to public access, he is the one that should be cited for criminal harrassment or vandalism.

If private to public, then there needs to be an easement or some other accomodation/agreements with the landowners.

 

[tdhanses]

Can you cite a source that they've been working on this cooperatively with stakeholders?

They did help organise the gofund me that is in the first post, so they must be in favor right?

 

[Jethro]

It's a small distinction, but it's important. Corner crossing is not pushing for an easement. It is pushing for the court to recognize that crossing over air space is not harming the land owner and certainly not harming the landowner more than the harm of excluding to general public to public land. Forcing an easement is eminent domain and most people think that is not the preferred route to settle things.

Exactly. This case is about corner crossing, not land locked public. Many on this thread are confusing the 2 and talking as if they are the same thing. They are not.

 

[406life]

Going on a personal conversation I had with Land Tawny (BHA) about 18 months ago.

He stated they were waiting for the right case to go forward.

Ron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Right case? That seems to say they were waiting for the right opportunity to force a trial. My question was asking if they have worked collaboratively with stakeholders to find solutions.

 

[realunlucky]

They did help organise the gofund me that is in the first post, so they must be in favor right?

Wyoming state chapter BHA is much different than a concerted all hands on deck effort from the national Backcountry Hunter's and Angler's head quarters. I've no doubt they have lawyers on staff if they were really interested in being involved. Seems they tend to duck all action on any issues that are controversial and leave blame at the feet of the state chapter.

It's an important issue so I donated and will continue to as the struggle moves forward. I just hope BHA doesn't get wet feet and punt later. The set back for access to public lands could be devastating; once Pandora box is torn open there's no going back.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[HighUintas]

I don't understand how they were ticketed in the first place if corner crossing has traditionally been accepted in Wyoming.