Wyoming corner crossing lawsuit

[svivian]

9 8/10 Road, Glade Park, CO 81523 | Zillow

9 8/10 Road, Glade Park CO, is a Vacant Land home.This home last sold for $1,050,000 in December 2021. The Rent Zestimate for this Vacant Land is $1,540/mo, which has increased by $1,540/mo in the last 30 days.

www.zillow.com

Here’s a perfect example I posted on the other thread…

 

[Mtnboy]

I’m with this, I think if the managing agency would provide a walk way and a little ticket money to the rancher that’d be fair to everyone and probably how it should be. I guess I’m a little spoiled by always having had a private place to hunt, I need to make it a point to see the other side a little more on the public land.

So you think the Rancher should be compensated for allowing the Public to access Public Land?

I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous and not fair at all. What that is is Ranchers getting even more Government hand outs than they already do.

So funny that most Ranchers hate "Big government" except when they need hand outs from the Government.

 

[Fordguy]

I've been reading the posts and staying out of the conversation so far, but the entire premise that the land owner is standing on in this case seems silly and flawed. The idea that somehow the landowner has incurred damage (been trespassed upon) because someone briefly passed through 24 inches of unused airspace? I mean what's next? If I fart on public and the wind blows it onto private where the landowner can smell it am I guilty of trespass? I've certainly disturbed his airspace.
The idea doesn't hold water. If it did, no one would be able to float down a river in Wyoming that passed through private property because they would be in the landowner's airspace. Further the landowner's chain between the T-posts (in Waptibob's picture) crosses the infinitesimally small space (assuming that it is precisely centered upon that point) that is public airspace, which I'm pretty sure is illegal.
It's been said before.
This case is not about trespass, damage, or the legitimate rights of the landowner being infringed upon. It's about the landowner attempting to keep and use public land for private, personal gain to the exclusion of the public and their rights to utilize public land. It's about someone attempting to take and keep more than their share of something that does not belong only to them. In short- it's greed, plain and simple.

IF the case were about hunters climbing and damaging fences while corner crossing, I'd probably see things differently, but that is not what this case is about.

 

[GotDraw?]

I’m a rancher and farmer too and I’m not against public land hunters if it’s there get it, but, they need not be on a private fence crossing a private fence or any of the like. The crossing is up to the state in my mind and until then if your shoulders enter another man’s airspace I guess it’s trespassing. Gotta be some kind of walkway or something. I’ve dealt with entitled morons and private fence and I know why ranchers get mad enough to go to court.

All that being said the government shouldn’t be allowed to own land and eminent domain is tyranny while we’re on the subject.

EMINENT DOMAIN IS TYRANNY!...

I guess that is what we told the Native Americans when we took their land and then sold it to the ranchers so they could later claim that eminent domain is tyranny when other citizens want to do nothing more than step over a corner.

Amusing logic that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

J

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

EMINENT DOMAIN IS TYRANNY!...

I guess that is what we told the Native Americans when we took their land and then sold it to the ranchers so they could later claim that eminent domain is tyranny when other citizens want to do nothing more than step over a corner.

Amusing logic that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

J

Oh now they're gonna call you a Commie.

 

[Mtnboy]

Oh now they're gonna call you a Commie.

All the while taking every hand out, subsidy and using Public Land they didn't pay for as their own.....

 

[Newtosavage]

I've been reading the posts and staying out of the conversation so far, but the entire premise that the land owner is standing on in this case seems silly and flawed. The idea that somehow the landowner has incurred damage (been trespassed upon) because someone briefly passed through 24 inches of unused airspace? I mean what's next? If I fart on public and the wind blows it onto private where the landowner can smell it am I guilty of trespass? I've certainly disturbed his airspace.
The idea doesn't hold water. If it did, no one would be able to float down a river in Wyoming that passed through private property because they would be in the landowner's airspace. Further the landowner's chain between the T-posts (in Waptibob's picture) crosses the infinitesimally small space (assuming that it is precisely centered upon that point) that is public airspace, which I'm pretty sure is illegal.
It's been said before.
This case is not about trespass, damage, or the legitimate rights of the landowner being infringed upon. It's about the landowner attempting to keep and use public land for private, personal gain to the exclusion of the public and their rights to utilize public land. It's about someone attempting to take and keep more than their share of something that does not belong only to them. In short- it's greed, plain and simple.

IF the case were about hunters climbing and damaging fences while corner crossing, I'd probably see things differently, but that is not what this case is about.

If the landowner was really energetic, he would have built two very sturdy and tall fence corners at that intersection that were solely on his own property and whose main cornerposts were no more than inches apart. But that would require a bit more work than driving in a couple T posts and throwing a chain and some wire around it. It would be legal though.

Not that I want to give these greedy btards any ideas.

 

[wapitibob]

A cpl 8' 4x4's for corner posts and a few feet of fencing off each would have done it.

 

[Fordguy]

True enough, until someone comes along with a taller ladder system. Lol. I can see that getting ridiculous. I wonder how long it would take before someone trailered a skytrack/petibone out there to go over the corner with man basket and let hunters climb down a rope ladder to the public land on the other side...

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Or Schnee's starts stocking custom moon boots designed to protect your feet while both bounding over fenceposts and hiking long distances.

 

[Fordguy]

Hey, I'd buy a pair of those, even if they looked like the 80,s moon boots I wore as a kid.

 

[Conrad101st]

In Oklahoma we have easement by necessity. Suspect most other states have something akin.

If federal land is landlocked or not reasonably approachable, the federal government’s should simply sue these killjoys to create a corner easement for perpetuity and be done with it. Crush them with the unlimited resources of Uncle Sam.

 

[String&stick]

In Oklahoma we have easement by necessity. Suspect most other states have something akin.

If federal land is landlocked or not reasonably approachable, the federal government’s should simply sue these killjoys to create a corner easement for perpetuity and be done with it. Crush them with the unlimited resources of Uncle Sam.

Exactly, and it doesn't have to involve roads or expenses. . . Just 5 or 10 ft wide easement across every corner insuring access!

 

[wind gypsy]

Corner-crossing defendants move for dismissal of trespass charges - WyoFile

A closely watched case regarding public land presumably locked up by checkerboard ownership should be dismissed, defendants’ attorney argues.

wyofile.com

This article makes me happy.

 

[Donny Land]

Honestly though, from reading the article, you'd think that this would be an open and shut case, if Federal Law does indeed trump State law when it comes to public land.

 

[Zappaman]

Honestly though, from reading the article, you'd think that this would be an open and shut case, if Federal Law does indeed trump State law when it comes to public land.

Unfortunately the LAW is only useful when it's asserted (used)... until then, the local ranchers will spend resources to "influence" local (and some federal) government entities (as they have been doing since time began). I'm sure the BLM and local wardens do the best they can, but sometimes these conflicts arise regardless of best efforts by the agencies.

And don't forget laws CHANGE, and this is because "something" starts somewhere and well... we all go to court. In this case, I hope the "public" land owner (we the people) prevail BASED on the current federal laws in place (*put there for when something like this transpires).

But... there are some grave upsets when some of these types of cases even go to the Supreme Court-- and the public loses (Monsonto is one I can never imagine would happen.. but it did) happen. So it is good to see LOTS of public support here... I hope it helps to keep public land "public" (and shut down people who think they own land they lease from US-for grazing, not hunting). If those FEW landowners go unchecked, they will keep blocking access to it's owners. That is a crime, but it's been going on for a long time in more than this ONE spot... and so we'll HOPEFULLY see if the Feds make a wise (precedent setting) choice-- this time.

Fingers crossed...

 

[Jimss]

Zappaman, I agree with you 100% on this: "But... there are some grave upsets when some of these types of cases even go to the Supreme Court-- and the public loses (Monsonto is one I can never imagine would happen.. but it did) happen. "

Monsanto and the Roundup deal is a great example. The costs and fees for this case were so astronomically high that a settlement was finally made. Roundup is pretty much 100% cancer free but they lost the battle due to extreme lawyer's fees since the process dragged on so long!

The reason I mention this is because this same thing could happen with this case. The longer this lingers the easier something similar may happen?

 

[TN VOL]

Problem solved

 

[wind gypsy]

Honestly though, from reading the article, you'd think that this would be an open and shut case, if Federal Law does indeed trump State law when it comes to public land.

The hunters were still in the airspace a couple feet above the private ground. Of course the defendants lawyers declare that inconsequential and most reasonable people would agree but does the law?

 

[wind gypsy]

In Oklahoma we have easement by necessity. Suspect most other states have something akin.

If federal land is landlocked or not reasonably approachable, the federal government’s should simply sue these killjoys to create a corner easement for perpetuity and be done with it. Crush them with the unlimited resources of Uncle Sam.

It seems simple but the unlimited resources of uncle sam are controlled by politicians who are highly influenced by the types of folks who own these large ranches.