Sitka Gear
Wy corner crossing round 2
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
Scrappy 04-May-22
Scrappy 04-May-22
Brotsky 04-May-22
smurph 04-May-22
JohnMC 04-May-22
smurph 04-May-22
Rut Nut 04-May-22
ohiohunter 04-May-22
Brotsky 04-May-22
Bowbender 04-May-22
HDE 04-May-22
Michael 04-May-22
smurph 04-May-22
Brotsky 04-May-22
HDE 04-May-22
Jaquomo 04-May-22
kentuckbowhnter 04-May-22
Rgiesey 04-May-22
Missouribreaks 04-May-22
Brotsky 04-May-22
drycreek 04-May-22
Rut Nut 04-May-22
Jaquomo 04-May-22
cnelk 04-May-22
drycreek 04-May-22
Jaquomo 04-May-22
Lost Arra 06-May-22
greg simon 06-May-22
cnelk 06-May-22
Missouribreaks 06-May-22
Brotsky 06-May-22
Missouribreaks 06-May-22
odoylerules 07-May-22
ahawkeye 07-May-22
Missouribreaks 07-May-22
ahawkeye 07-May-22
Rut Nut 07-May-22
ahawkeye 07-May-22
Old Bow 07-May-22
RonP 07-May-22
WapitiBob 07-May-22
Missouribreaks 07-May-22
Dale06 07-May-22
RK 07-May-22
Jaquomo 07-May-22
odoylerules 08-May-22
Medicinemann 08-May-22
RonP 08-May-22
Missouribreaks 08-May-22
cnelk 09-May-22
RT 09-May-22
[email protected] 09-May-22
Jaquomo 09-May-22
cnelk 09-May-22
Jaquomo 09-May-22
Aspen Ghost 09-May-22
Rut Nut 10-May-22
Old Bow 10-May-22
wytex 10-May-22
Bowsiteguy 25-May-22
Bill in MI 26-May-22
Habitat 26-May-22
[email protected] 26-May-22
bobbylight 29-Jun-22
bobbylight 29-Jun-22
cnelk 29-Jun-22
thedude 29-Jun-22
From: Scrappy
04-May-22
https://wyofile.com/hunters-face-new-corner-crossing-trespass-charges/

The carbon County judge and DA should be sent packing for this crap.

From: Scrappy
04-May-22

Scrappy's Link
Clickable link

From: Brotsky
04-May-22
"The carbon County judge and DA should be sent packing for this crap."

Why would they be sent packing and who would send them? They are doing the bidding of the conservatives in Carbon County who elected them, especially their largest tax payers. Doesn't make it right, those are just the facts.

From: smurph
04-May-22
Brotsky, way to throw politics into this. More likely, the "rich" landowners of Wyoming are elite, wealthy, nonresidents (ie. Ted Turner's of the world. ) They are probably the ones backing the corrupt judges and DAs. Just a guess, but if we are slinging BS around...

From: JohnMC
04-May-22
What I don’t understand is the civil case. What damages are they claiming? They can’t show any actual damage to their property. Are they saying it diminishes the hunting done on public property that until they corner crossed the landowner only had access to hunt?

From: smurph
04-May-22
Just checked, made his fortune in big pharma and lives on the east coast.

From: Rut Nut
04-May-22
I'm all for prosecuting criminals, but IMHO this should fall under the DOUBLE JEAPARDY rule and should be thrown out! How can you be prosecuted for doing something in 2020 that was ruled LEGAL by a courtcase when you did it in 2021???!!! What is the prosecution going to do.....................................go back every year and start another court case until they win?! THey should not be allowed to do that! : (

From: ohiohunter
04-May-22
I hope hope hope these guys counter sue!! Please find them an attorney to rep these guys, make a statement on behalf of all public land forgoers.

From: Brotsky
04-May-22
Rut Nut, they can keep bringing these cases because there is no clear LAW that says this is legal or illegal. Technically it's a separate offense in the 2020 charges. Kind of like getting pulled over for speeding twice, you beat the first one is doesn't mean you get off on the second one automatically. Until the representatives of the state of WY make a law that specifically addresses this situation one way or another we can continue to be prosecuted for it. While winning the first court case was great, it technically did nothing for our ability to corner cross legally in WY, it just means they got away with it in this case.

Smurph, I didn't bring politics into it, they were already here. This is 100% a political issue. It can only be solved by WY politicians clarifying WY law to make corner crossing legal or illegal. Otherwise overzealous state's attorneys can keep bringing these cases forward, eventually they might win a couple, or maybe not. Bottom line is not everyone has the deep pockets to fight the charges brought forward so they are making corner crossing de facto illegal by bringing the cases. Which is exactly what the landowners and largest tax payers of Carbon County want.

From: Bowbender
04-May-22
Rut,

It's not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is being tried for the same case after being found not guilty. And like Brot said, until statute is ruled unconstituional, clarified, or whatever, additional cases can be tried.

From: HDE
04-May-22
You can't be prosecuted for something today that is now illegal you did yesterday that was legal. The U.S. Constitution defines that. Maybe they don't teach law at WY law school, who knows...

From: Michael
04-May-22
From the article

“According to two sources who either witnessed the serving or heard it described to the judge, the deputy handed the summons to the defendants in front of most of the 58-member jury pool while the defense attorneys, prosecutors and the judge were in a conference in a separate room.”

Pretty shady to do this in front of the jury pool. I am curious to think what the defendants attorneys have to say about this.

If they go to trial there will be a new jury. I am curious if the outcome will be the same.

From: smurph
04-May-22
Brotsky, thanks for the clarity. So if these guys show up next year to hunt, will they potentially be charged again for the same thing? Like a ground hog day nightmare.

From: Brotsky
04-May-22
Exactly smurph, it is a nightmare. Contrary to what HDE mentioned above, they do apparently teach law in Wyoming. Because the prosecutor is using it to their advantage to suck these guys dry and to discourage anyone else from wanting to go down the same path without needing the legislature to actually do anything to solve the problem. The judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice against the prosecutor, which would be the best outcome frankly. That would discourage further prosecution from happening until there is a statute change of some type

From: HDE
04-May-22
^^^ umm...no.

From: Jaquomo
04-May-22
Even if the WY legislature passes some law defining corner crossing and allowing it, this won't be truly settled until it either is ruled on by the USSC or they decline to hear an appeal from a lower court. This is because the precedent and raison d'etre is based on the USSC Causby ruling, which the jury chose to ignore. Maybe it applies, maybe not. The legislature would have to do some fancy tap dancing to define a law that conflicts with that. Given the conservative makeup of the WY legislature, that might be a reach.

Sounds like the DA may have screwed up by introducing the Causby factor just before deliberations rather than basing the case around it. But none of us were there so we really don't know what happened in that courtroom.

04-May-22
Maybe the BLM can make the checkerboard land no tresspassing and then the private guys can be arrested for corner crossing.

From: Rgiesey
04-May-22
A judges job is not to do the bidding of his constituents but to interpret and follow the letter of the law

04-May-22
I would be fine if Federally owned landlocked land is off limits to all hunting, including adjacent private land owners. Animals need safe space too.

From: Brotsky
04-May-22
Lou, I think the defense in this case could have successfully argued against the Causby precedent as transit through the landowner's corner did not represent a "taking" of any use or enjoyment of the landowner's property in any material way. This whole thing is a sticky wicket. I do think ultimately that the best case scenario would be a guilty verdict and an appeal that reaches the USSC for a final ruling. I highly doubt we will ever see that unfortunately and frankly I don't think we want the current court to consider this case.

From: drycreek
04-May-22
Checkerboard lands have always been bull chit IMO. There was no sane reason for it to be that way from the start, but private landowners love it because they get to use the land like it was theirs and the public is told to take a hike. I’m done hunting Wyoming but for the sake of the younger guys I hope there is a fair resolution to this, not only in Wyoming, but in all the western states where it exists.

From: Rut Nut
04-May-22
OK Brotsky- I see your point. I guess it’s up to the judge to dismiss the charges with prejudice against the prosecutor......................IMHO that is exactly what should happen!

From: Jaquomo
04-May-22
Drycreek, actually there were a lot of reasons in the beginning.. The checkerboards came about as a public-private partnership to build the railroads. Nobody ever envisioned hunting access as a barrier back then, and let's face it, the ONLY people who care about this issue are hunters.

BLM land was mostly the crappy land nobody wanted to own or develop, generally wasn't high quality grazing land, but somebody had to manage it so Department of the Interior took responsibility. Again, nobody took hunting access into account back then.

Before western big game hunting became a big money game, it was no big deal. Ask, and we generally got permission. But the monster of commercialization, coupled with shrinking public access to private land, made this issue into an "issue". Only a very, very tiny proportion of the U.S. population, and frankly, only a small proportion of hunters, is wrapped around the axles over this. Social media has made it appear to be something larger that it truly is.

From: cnelk
04-May-22
If anything, nonhunters, hikers and star gazers need to get on board with this. More the better.

From: drycreek
04-May-22
Lou, I know the reason that it wound up this way, but the reasoning boils down to greed, even in the beginning. The government could have given the same amount of land, minus the checkerboarding and accomplished the populating of the west just as well IMO. As Ronald Reagan said, the most feared words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you. “

From: Jaquomo
04-May-22
Sure, but back then checkerboarding didnt matter. BHA didn't exist, and pretty much everyone could hunt wherever they wanted. This is really only a recent "hunting" issue.

From: Lost Arra
06-May-22
Must not be much real crime in Carbon County. This prosecutor needs to look busy in an election year. She probably leads the nation in jury trials for trespassing.

I can see her campaign slogans:

Toe the Line (But don't cross it) or Pay the Fine or Do the Time.

Ashley Mayfield Davis-Tough on Crime and Protector of the King's Elk

From: greg simon
06-May-22
Rich guys own most of the big ranches. Rich guys benefit from the existing rules. Rich guys make the rules. Rich guys have their minions enforce the rules. See a pattern here??

End of story

From: cnelk
06-May-22
He who has the gold makes the golden rule

06-May-22
Maybe then it is better for hunters to be " rich ."

From: Brotsky
06-May-22
Isn't it better for everyone to be rich? Certainly better than everyone being poor which is where we seem to be headed!

06-May-22
That is what voters wanted, including some on this forum.

From: odoylerules
07-May-22
“Violating the airspace” What a joke! So if I had a helicopter I couldn’t land on a public parcel because I flew over your private one? Corner crossing should not be illegal, period. These rich guys are gaming the system by buying up these checkerboard parcels and now they cry foul when somebody else wants to game the system that they are already gaming?

From: ahawkeye
07-May-22
As far as making landlocked ground off limits to everyone, who would police this? The already stretched thin and overworked COs? Maybe the rich landowners will police themselves? Ot maybe the outfitter will turn himself in? Or the clients who don't have a clue where they are will back out of said spot because they already know the rules! That's the ticket! Problem solved!

That's my attempt at humor but seriously I don't see that plan working.

07-May-22
I guess perhaps there are more hunters who break the rules than I thought. Does not say much for hunters.

From: ahawkeye
07-May-22
Missouribreaks, to what are you referring to?

From: Rut Nut
07-May-22
I don’t begrudge anyone for being rich. Actually, more power to ‘em! But the rich are notorious for “taking advantage” of the system. Again, nothing wrong with that. (As long as no laws are broken)

Where I have a problem, is when the rich(or anyone for that matter) get GREEDY! IMHO, rich land owners that use corner crossing laws to prevent the public from using these landlocked (public) land for their own private use, is the definition of greed!

I hunted a section of State Forest land a few times that bordered a large private hunting club. The members were not satisfied with hunting on their own land, they would walk out onto the public land and do drives and try to push the deer and bear back towards their land where the standers were posted. Not illegal, but pretty greedy in my opinion! : (

From: ahawkeye
07-May-22
I agree Rut Nut, or the rancher who tries to push elk onto his land while "moving cattle".

From: Old Bow
07-May-22
I heard that every tag that is given to a nonresident through the draw , a landowner gets a tag .I’m not sure how that works if true .

From: RonP
07-May-22
Agree rut nut.

Old Bow, I am not sure how that would work either. Seems like there would be a whole lot of tags and a poor way to manage wildlife....?

From: WapitiBob
07-May-22
“I heard that every tag that is given to a nonresident through the draw , a landowner gets a tag .I’m not sure how that works if true .“

Who ever told you that is talking out their butt.

07-May-22
This thread gets better, and better.

From: Dale06
07-May-22
Well stated Rut Nut.

From: RK
07-May-22
Well stated Missouri

From: Jaquomo
07-May-22
I see both sides of this, living in corner crossing checkerboard country. I have mixed feelings. But take a step back.

From Merriam Webster. Definition of greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed.

With several hundred million acres of accessible National Forest (except Wyoming wilderness..) BLM, state land, wildlife refuges, and walk-in land to hunt, could this definition also apply to hunters??

From: odoylerules
08-May-22
Buying up checkerboard pattern land is just maximizing what you can do within the rules. So then is corner crossing. Both sides should live with it

From: Medicinemann
08-May-22
I wonder if the landowner is shooting himself in the foot. The defendants were already acquitted on related charges. If they are acquitted again, I would expect to see others challenge the landowners claims going forward. An interesting precedent.....

From: RonP
08-May-22
"With several hundred million acres of accessible National Forest (except Wyoming wilderness..) BLM, state land, wildlife refuges, and walk-in land to hunt, could this definition also apply to hunters??"

Of course not. Using elk as an example, not all public land has elk. The strategy or objective for most is to find where the elk are, and not to simply hunt for elk on land that is accessible. You knew that though.

08-May-22
The grass is always greener across the corner.

From: cnelk
09-May-22

cnelk's Link
Charges are asked to be dismissed

See link

From: RT
09-May-22
Good deal.

09-May-22
They had pretty decent luck in the spot they hunted. I wonder if they do will do it again?

From: Jaquomo
09-May-22
" The strategy or objective for most is to find where the elk are". Of course I know that. I also know that the reason the hunting is so good on Elk Mountain Ranch, and demands a premium price, is because of extremely limited entry. I hunted CO unit 2 public land a few years ago where there were 7 archery tags. It was great. But if it was OTC, well, not so much.

It will be interesting to see how good the hunting will be on that part of the ranch in the future, after the invasion of the Sitka Army doing battle with the Kuiu Warriors. Right now there are thousands of potential corner-hoppers building ladders and studying the maps to find that corner. And EMR may be constructing a 20 foot high "fence" at that corner. No law prevents the landowner from doing that.

This coming season may be very telling, depending upon the outcome of the civil suit, and the next steps of the landowner. And I suspect landowners elsewhere in Carbon County with checkerboard are likewise scheming.

From: cnelk
09-May-22

cnelk's embedded Photo
cnelk's embedded Photo
This is the checker board area in question

From: Jaquomo
09-May-22
A creative fabricating guy (Brad..) might make some money designing and marketing super-light packable "corner crossing" ladders. Make it modular and fit into it's own pack frame. Hmmmm..

From: Aspen Ghost
09-May-22
Electric pogo stick. All the advantages of an ebike but also jumps corners!

From: Rut Nut
10-May-22
Wow- common sense actually won out...................(dismissal)

From: Old Bow
10-May-22
We can allow illegals , drug dealers and known criminals to cross our Borders and receive money but yet won’t allow tax paying American citizens to use public land , just BS

From: wytex
10-May-22
I wonder if the enclosures act can keep him from building that fence at the corners, it would prohibit entry onto public lands if he does and may be illegal.

From: Bowsiteguy
25-May-22
Organize and fund a state program to gain access by eminent domain at corners and connect the corners by trails through the best hunting BLM land. Owners should be paid a pro rata amount for the square footage of the corner taken comparable to the square footage for the entire property. In some areas this could also include roads through BLM to other areas areas of BLM with trails. Lots of ways to do it.

From: Bill in MI
26-May-22
Frankly, I'm not sure why the concept of an easement for all access across all corners is not a thing. A landowner should be able to cross corners to his own land on the other side regardless of ownership of the other diagonal lots. If it must be fenced then it must be gated, etc. Otherwise, don't build your fence to the corner cutting off access. Impeding access where corners touch should be illegal, not the other way around. Fast forward to public land corners...what's good for the goose...

From: Habitat
26-May-22
A private landowner in no way should profit off public land they are restricting without a legal contract with the state such as grazing.

26-May-22
Technically they can't profit off of the land without a permit. What they can profit off of is the access to reach the land and their increased land value by having exclusive access to the public they block.

If an outfitter guides the ranch and the public behind the ranch, they need a use permit for the public.

From: bobbylight
29-Jun-22
Personally I think we should flood this particular area next elk season with hunters. Just to send the message to the rich land owner that the rest of us don't take kindly to him thinking he owns the public land!

From: bobbylight
29-Jun-22
Personally I think we should flood this particular area next elk season with hunters. Just to send the message to rich land owner that the rest of us don't take kindly to him thinking he owns the public land!

From: cnelk
29-Jun-22
Why wait til elk season? It’s public land. Go enjoy it.

From: thedude
29-Jun-22
There were leftover tags. If I didn’t draw a mule deer tag I would have applied for a leftover there. It’s on my list of things to do i the next few years. Elk mountain road is the county road that will get you into the corner locations.

  • Sitka Gear