Elk mountain corner crossing case
General Topic
Like these guys defense on pointing out that the airspace at the corner is a shared airspace. Which if you took out the benefits of the private land owners then this would be common sense.
It will be interesting to see who comes out on top. I'm hoping for the hunters to be successful, as it would open up a lot of public land.
Same old, same old, people with a lot of money (or a politician) seem to think they can get away with almost anything!
I hate landlocked public land.
That said corner crossing significantly lowers property values and will have significant financial losses for many property owners.
Ethically a tough call IMO.
If you let money cloud your judgement then you aren't looking at it ethically. Look at the issue, what is the right thing to do....end of story.
Otherwise it's like a business owner making a decision not to help his customer with a faulty product because he'd lose money. So what they he loses money, the right thing to do is the right thing to do.
On the flip side, in this case are you going to reimburse all the public land hunters that have been robbed of opportunities for years?
I would propose a two year boycott on all hunting nation-wide. The lost revenue on all fronts would give sportsmen/women more leverage. Not just in corner crossings but overall in general.
Not a ban... a voluntary boycott. Just think what the state agencies would do to get license revenue back.
It would piss off the checkerboard land owners and the outfitters...I'm okay with that.
Two years of boycotting deer hunting in our part of Illinois and it wouldn’t be safe to drive the roads at night.
I want access to public lands but most land owners did nothing wrong. They paid a premium for the land due in part to the exclusive access to landlocked public. This civil suit is ridiculous and won't solve corner crossing other than maybe that jurisdiction but there are two legitimate sides to the issue.
Pretending these guys cost the ranch millions is silly and should be rejected.
"Two years of boycotting deer hunting in our part of Illinois and it wouldn’t be safe to drive the roads at night."
It would certainly move the anti-hunting freaks to the back of the priority line...
I think all landlocked public land should have public access of some sort. Be it an easement road or a ladder to cross corners. Screw the landowners if they feel they have there land plus our land that they have control of. I hope the hunters come out on top.
The solution is simple. The blm should enforce the same law the adjacent land owner does. If I can’t cross your corner then you can’t cross mine.
"corner crossing significantly lowers property values and will have significant financial losses for many property owners.
Ethically a tough call IMO. "
So, part of private land's market value derives from it land-locking public property? Do these owners pay property taxes on that perceived value? Or the _actual_ value of what they own? If they ain't paying taxes on it, they don't own it. I see no ethical problem here, just greed.
Market value drives assessment. They don't pay taxes on the public property but it increases market value of their deeded land.
Elk Mountains case is that losing the ability to block access decreases his property's market value.
Properties that have beech or lake access have a higher value even tho they don't own the lake or ocean
"Shared airspace?" I could find no legal definition that would apply. That's the dumbest argument ever! So if I own corner lots that meet at a corner, but have different access points so no easement across is necessary, I can build a bridge over the corner because it's "shared airspace"? In what world would that be a good thing.
This system has been in place since the 1800s. Property has been bought and sold under this system for a couple of hundred years. Now an extremely small segment of society wants to claim eminent domain, which is what this amounts to. And for what? To open small parcels of public land surrounded by private that will ultimately turn out like all other public land; too many people and not enough game. And what about safety? A rifle bullet fired in any direction, from any place in most of these sections, in open country will end up on private land. I guess they could open it, but make firearms illegal. That might be a good compromise. ;-)
"Do these owners pay property taxes on that perceived value?" I would think so, since taxes are based on fair market value. I have the best views in the CO front range from my decks. That figures in to my property value that I pay taxes on.
"The simple solution" that kentuckbowhunter proposes only works if the BLM closes the public sections to everyone. After all, the private land owner is PART of the general public. If he crosses, no trespass occurs.
I could care less about the greedy, wealthy landowners and hope the hunters win. Hope to be flying my plane into some of these landlocked areas someday.
"And what about safety? A rifle bullet fired in any direction, from any place in most of these sections, in open country will end up on private land."
Talk about the dumbest argument ever, to use your words.
As a long time non-resident hunter in Wyoming, I explored the notion of doing just what those hunters from Missouri did. I downloaded all checkerboard maps around Elk Mountain but ultimately decided I alone was not up for the fight to challenge these landowners.
My personal opinion is that there should be no landlocked publicly owned land. Taxpayers own this land, therefor they have the right to access it. This land has not been set aside as a sanctuary of any kind. It was originally allowed for the benefit of getting the ranchers to settle there for grazing purposes and to gain some tax income for the state.
As for the trespassing in the air space, that's ticky-tacky at best. Those Missouri hunters did not harm anyone or any property nor did it show any malice by their shoulders passing into said air space.
Greed on the ranch owners part is the only basis in this lawsuit. They're just mad that someone outsmarted them and got a couple of elk to show for it.
It's only been law in certain states since late 1800's. Some states have clear ROW's to landlocked public by foot on private to get to it.you
If you dont like public landlocked land dont look at a MT map. All that purple you see is School Land. Huge amounts are totally surrounded by private. Have hunted a bunch and some ranchers will try boot you or tell you its ranch land where it touches USFS. Or they go in on horses and run Elk back into ranch property on a regular basis. Going on for years.
mike
Sounds to me like a few greedy hunters are not happy with the hundreds of millions of acres of public land available for hunting now, and want to change the rules go get access to a little more that was purchased at a premium price by landowners playing by the rules. Nobody cares about this except a few hunters. At the last committer hearing on the proposed law in CO to allow corner crossing, exactly one hunter showed up to testify in favor of it, and he is a friend of the bill sponsor and talked her into submitting the proposal. Nobody cares.
Copperhead, you may want to research the real reason for the public-private sections being divided up the way they are back in the 1800s.
RonP, most of these checkerboard sections are one square mile. From anywhere on the section, a rifle bullet will carry onto private land in every direction. And many of the private sections have multiple homes on them.
Jaquomo, I understand that the expansion of the railroad to the west was the origin of this but I stand by my statement of the ranchers benefiting from the grazing on these federal lands and the state receiving taxes from the private owners.
There is nothing greedy about a hunter who paid his hard earned money to hunt on public land wanting to hunt on said land.
It goes both ways. Nobody paid hard earned money to hunt on government owned land on which the government doesn't allow access. You paid to hunt animals managed by the state. (BTW, Colorado doesn't allow hunting or fishing on state-owned land. Why aren't the Backdoor Hikers and Activists complaining about that??)
Colorado alone has over 23 million acres of National Forest and BLM, and a handful of hunters are not happy with that, and demand to force their way through some people's backyards, on land they paid a premium to acquire by playing by the rules, to get to another 640 acres. That, my friend, is the definition of greed.
Is this even still even relevant for anyone to waste time on?
Just strip the rich fat cat of his land in the name of eminent domain and move on. What a crybaby...
Unfortunately the wedge between hunters and landowners and property rights keeps getting driven deeper.
"Just strip the rich fat cat of his land in the name of eminent domain and move on"
Sure, they do this in communist countries. What about the hundreds, maybe thousands of middle class families who invested their life savings in a small piece of property that gave them access to government-owned land? Fortunately, the SCOTUS in this country ruled that recreation is not a valid reason to confiscate land or force access easements through Eminent Domain.
Still, we have some greedy crybabies who think hundreds of millions of acres isn't "enough". Our society is full of losers who want what others have, without paying for it. This is just one more example.
The BLM land in Wyoming is available for the hunting public to use. The rules do caution that it may be difficult to access but it does not say that you cannot hunt there. What may be legal in Wyoming may not be legal in Colorado, so comparing the two is moot, in legal matters.
Please see the attachment, specifically page 4. It says "There is no specific state or federal laws regarding corner crossings. Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access.". So it looks like the hunters may be wrong on their approach to this property, but it also says there are no laws regarding it. That is confusing at the very least but the hunters should have at least tried to get permission or found a public access point.
I am a landowner in Kansas and I understand that I cannot do anything about people hunting right next to my property lines. If someone shoots a deer on the adjoining properties and it runs onto my property then dies there, I will let them retrieve that deer if they ask permission and will also accompany plus assist them in doing so. I have a very good relationship with my surrounding land owners and ask permission before I step foot on there land even though they say it's not necessary. I own the mineral rights to my land but I can't stop people from flying over my land unless they are doing so in a harassing nature.
"So, part of private land's market value derives from it land-locking public property? Do these owners pay property taxes on that perceived value? Or the _actual_ value of what they own? If they ain't paying taxes on it, they don't own it. I see no ethical problem here, just greed. "
I am a little late to the party but DanaC could not be more correct.
Has that ever been said on Bowsite before? :) JK Dana.
Common sense would result in the lawsuit being tossed out which usually means things will go poorly for the hunters since common sense doesn't usually fit into civil suits.
A lot of "values" thrown around. There is assessed value, appraised value and market value. They don't have to be the same and rarely are. This sounds like Mr Elk Mountain paid a premium and feels like a sucker. What he paid is irrelevant in my mind and to my surprise the judge has expressed similar thoughts about the real estate appraiser (see link). This same thing happened to some wealthy ranch purchasers in Montana who thought or were told they "owned" the rivers or streams running along or within their property.
Still, we have some greedy crybabies who think hundreds of millions of acres isn't "enough". Our society is full of losers who want what others have, without paying for it. This is just one more example.
So, the adjoining land owners of public properties should have full access for these properties that we pay for to themselves? LOL, I don't think so, who is the crybaby here? Perhaps they should pay the taxes solely on those public lands if we who pay for them cannot access!!!
This whole thing always blows my mind. I live in a state most hunters would like to run out of, but we may have the best hunting land access ability of anyone in the nation - state-level rule: if it's not posted, it's huntable. Some communities create local bylaws that require written permission etc, but for much of the state, see a spot that's not posted, you can hunt it.
So when I see this stuff, it just feels weird. On paper, one can walk across a corner and never touch the private land, but that's somehow still considered a no-go zone it seems. It just feels like forgetting the spirit of the law and situation.
One buys private with public land around it knowing one has great access to that land... means they also know it's public and theoretically that others could be there. If you can not enter the land - without even touching the private physically - then it's not public land, it's the private land owners.
That's the part that feels weird to me.
If you could just step over the corner and hike in, great, that seems entirely reasonable. But if that's viewed as trespass, it seems wrong.
Landowners do own the airspace above their property up to a certain elevation. It's not possible to cross the corner without touching private property.
I'll say it again. This will end all future corner crossings. The cost of litigation will ensure that. No one will risk 6 figure litigation costs to hunt elk.
The only fix is specific legislation that makes it legal. Anything less is a waste of time.
This case is now about civil liability and damages. If the civil trial finds them not guilty of trespassing, there is no ability to collect damages.
If the judge/jury decides they did trespass, then damages have to be proven. How does the landowner prove that an arm and a leg in the air at the corner of his property for a few seconds damaged him to the tune of 7-9 Million? Without selling the property, any damage estimate would be speculative. Can you imagine if the same damage assessment for an arm over the fence be applied to all private land?
Some jurisdictions have already legislated the outcome for damages. Non criminal trespass can carry a set minimum fine. Perhaps this case will result in precedent for what could be called a corner crossing trespass fee.
I think that with a judge that follows the law, these fellows will not be paying much or anything to the landowner. Then new laws will muddy the water again....
It seem like a lot of conservative should be championing private property rights instead of communal property ownership, like liberals. Damn Bowlibs. ;-)
None of this affects me personally as I have literally millions and millions of acres to hunt in about 50 states, but I do stand with personal property rights. I am not going to give the non hunting landowners and voters another reason to hate hunters and hunting. We cannot win without their support.
Kentucky has a good idea.
New law:
Any public land that is not accessible to the public is not open to the adjacent landowner.
Not talking about checkerboard land. Those should prob be sold. But when a private ranch can control 100% access to thousands of acre as of “public” land, that is just wrong.
Anyone against corner crossing is a douche
I think a sensible theory might be that the wildlife on public land is "Owned" and regulated by the state and the residents thereof. If the public land and wildlife cannot be utilized (Hunted) on state land by all owner / residents for any reason, i.e. tresspass on surrounding privately held land, then the wildlife on such land, and other utilization of such land shall be forbidden to all. Simply said.....no access for all then no hunting (Or other utilization) for any.
Nice, dude. How about we flip it and say any hunter who advocates for trespassing, per SCOTUS rulings, is a slob hunter.
Ziek, you beat me to it. Funny how so-called "conservatives" can quickly become socialists when they have something to gain...
Anyone who cites the scotus ruling relating to military aircraft killing chickens as their basis to block access to public land is also a douche
The people in the 1800s were way smarter than the selfish bastards of today.
From my perspective this conversation is analogous to people who move to a new state to get away from the negative aspects of that state only to aggressively campaign for changes to their new home state that would mirror what they just left!
Just for comparison, put yourself in the landowner’s position and then continue to be an advocate for legal corner crossings.
No body is above the Law except if you are an illegal crossing across the border and private land.
Common sense in this case went out the window, no damage or loss occurred except one needs a micrometer to witness any breach of private boundary but money talks and BS walks, this would make a hunter into an anti-hunter.
Witness here in the upper-midwest on checker board land where the private owner moved their property post pass the access boundary and a big no trespassing sign put on it, he was eventually was found out by a NFWL employee and convicted, he was a high price lawyer.
Another prize from "thedouche"! You're a real winner, and thanks for your insightful, intelligent contributions to Bowsite!
Anyone who refers to government-owned land as "public land" is clueless.
And only a tiny little bit of trespassing is analogous to only "sticking the tip in"
“ I want access to public lands but most land owners did nothing wrong.” .
Mark it down. For the first and likely the last time, I disagree with Glunt.
If the landowner paid a premium for a shared corner, owned in trust by the American people, then takes a value loss because that shared corner and property line gets utilized by the public, that’s totally on them.
In every other investment, such variables are used to determine the risk versus reward component. Giving landowners who WANT special consideration in their purchase isn’t a responsibility of the public.
These landowners have zero problems with the gains as things are in most states. But whine like three year olds that didn’t get ice cream before dinner when someone swings a leg through their air space.
If there is currently alternate access that makes these landlocked areas accessible, then I see no problem in telling the users of public land to suck it up. However, if there is no granted right of way to truly landlocked public land, then private landowners should be told to suck it up.
It’s not a hard concept to logically solve. But, it makes no sense to me that a private landowner demand they get exclusive access to public land, to increase the value of their purchase.
Justin, as someone who lives in checkerboard nation, I would love to have access to some of those parcels. But I see both sides.
Until the rules are established by legislature, it will be a county by county issue. Mine prosecutes. Others do not. Attempts to legislate have failed in MT and WY. Not looking good for the current attempt in CO. But this has to either be legislated or decided by the USSC, or a lower court ruling the USSC decides to let stand.
The real answer is for the Feds to continue/expand efforts to create access corridors to all USFS and BLM lands with one very important change:
Until a public access corridor exists for a parcel of BLM/USFS land, it should be closed to all access and activity except for approved grazing/mineral leases. The closure would prohibit any hunting or recreational activity under those leases and limit activity strictly to the immediate purpose of those leases.
Lou, I 100% agree on the issues being local. And, as bad as it hurts my earlier pint, that’s the way it should be.
And, I see both sides too. I argue for an equally fair compromise. With the realization that the real loss a private landowner is truly worried about with sharing property lines with public land, isn’t so because he losses exclusive privilege to the land he has locked up.
The real monetary loss is going to be caused by the trash left laying around by slobs. The rode over fences. The gates left open. Basically every thing he dislikes, and likely the reason he cherishes his solitude from the masses, is now something that he’s going to have to deal with daily.
Unfortunately, hypothetical scenarios arguing for one side, doesn’t include the reality the results present. So, it’s a hard thing to determine who’s right and what’s the best answer.
I think a lot of the misunderstandings from the public’s side is the belief that all government managed land is open to the desires of the public.
You and I both know the difference in trust land held in the national forest system versus land under blm control. We both know why one is housed in the department of interior and one is part of the department of agriculture.
There is a huge difference. And the stink caused by the BHA and other “grassroots” organizations pushing the public landowner mantra has made the issue worse. Which has no doubt made these private landowners lives a lot more complex with the barrage of newly inspired public land warriors. Which has done nothing but solidify the resolve these private landowners have in order to protect their interests.
Anyways, it is what it is. And, a one stop national legislative rule isn’t the answer. That’s why it’s got be a county by county, then state by state issue. Because Jim Bob elk hunter in Ohio cares very little about the days he isn’t wanting to hike in and hunt. And, has no issue with the problems that access for all will cause the private landowner. He just wants to hunt in a more remote area and could care less. So, there is no easy or one for all answer.
As as ranch owner and conservative, I advocate private property rights every chance I get. But I don’t advocate exclusive use of public land that landowners don’t own, and don’t pay taxes on or lease all use rights.
You can call it government land, but the land we are discussing here IMO IS public that we do have the right to use, IF we can get to it without trespassing. Helicopterig in is one example. Thus, in my mind it’s public land. If it wasn’t public it would not be legal for me to step on it anywhere or hunt, however I got there. Those hunters absolutely had the right to hunt on that land. Had they hired a helicopter or hiked in from the backside (if such a route thru public land was possible) they wouldn’t be in court.
If the government leases the land to the landowner, then it’s not public. The state of Colorado does that a lot. That’s a good example of government land that is not public. The land we are talking about here is government/ public land a landowner didn’t pay for, doesn’t pay taxes on, doesn’t pay for the exclusive hunting rights to, and gets to enjoy all the benefits of ownership without paying for that privilege
Txhunter- most public that is leased for grazing in Colorado, is still open to hunting. I shot my bull last year off such land.
Yes. If the checkerboard in question has public granted access, simply wanting a closer or easier access is not relevant. If it’s legal to be there, which is going to be influenced by variables such as which agency is managing the land, and there is legal access already established, the public should be forced to pound sand.
Simply put, It’s a much more complex topic than we could ever hope to represent in this thread. And while these threads always brings out reply’s that seem to have no room for debate or compromise from posters, I’m willing to bet the house that no matter how we come across, we’d all likely agree more often then not if each case was looked at individually.
Not all State owned land that is leased has public access.
Some other State owned land also has limited/restricted access due to grazing.
I can tell you from experience, you won't change Jaquomo's mind no matter how much logic you speak on this subject. Where the hell were all you guys thr last time I was arguing about this? I've said it before and I'll say it again public land is public land these parcels need to be opened up and corner crossing is the most logical way to do it. Greed is what is keeping them closed.
What about four private parcel corners that touch? Would anyone want to own two of them that they have access to one from a road or whatever but can't access the the other at the corner?
SBH. I actually have a neighbor that had that very issue, and I almost bought that property before settling on others. The seller wanted to sell parcels in this area in 9, 40 acres parcels in 3, 40 acre groups in a line (side to side) so he wouldn't have to put in access to each 40 acres (an easement road already ran through each of the 3 lines of 40 acres parcels). The end line had an additional 40 acres kitty-corner to the others that had no legal access. That parcel was included with the others that it was corner to corner with at no extra cost. My neighbor that bought those parcels was eventually able to NEGOTIATE an easement across the corner. So, in essence, he got 80 acres for the price of 40. I don't know the details of any expenses related to the easement.
Another issue not touched on if corner crossing is allowed, especially for bow hunters, is how many elk that are hit and make it out of the tiny "public" land section. If I were the property owner where they end up, the hunter would NOT be allowed to recover it.
Finally, this isn't the panacea that some seem to imagine. I had a similar experience with school board land. Back in the early 90s, I had permission to pronghorn hunt a school board property from the lease holder. Back then we could get tags pretty much every year. We had a great place to camp on the property and the hunting was great with very few other hunters. After a few years, when I called the lease holder to make sure we could still hunt, he sounded pissed. The DOW had leased the hunting rights and he no longer had control, and suggested I should check the regs before heading in. There was NO access for scouting or setting blinds before opening day. NO driving in, camping, or pit blinds. We tried to hunt it that year, and it sucked. For the first time neither of us killed a pronghorn. We found another place to hunt.
ahawkeye, you will change my mind as soon as the laws are changed and county sheriffs stop citing corner crossers. I speak to reality, while some of you guys keep saying "should" and "need", as though righteous indignation will make it happen. Did you testify in favor of the proposed bill in CO a couple weeks ago? Nope. Only one hunter spoke up. How about it when it was debated in the MT and WY legislatures, where it failed. There are constitutional issues with your "logical" solutions, which include the Takings Clause. Show me anywhere where it says the public has the right to hunt on ALL government-owned land, for any reason.
As I've posted before, I would love to be able to access some of the corners around where I live. But if it is legalized, those parcels will be overrun with hunters and the hunting will suck. So it won't be the nirvana you guys imagine.
I keep hearing "greed" as the reason for this. Buying property adjacent to landlocked government land is smart business, not greed.
From Merriam Webster - Greed: "selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed". Sounds like corner crossers who aren't happy with hundreds of millions of acres of publicly accessible hunting land, and want even more, private property rights be damned.
Some are also assuming every landowner cornering public land is using it as their private hunting ground. That is wrong, many do not hunt.
The video Don posted was good. Esp. the part about building a walk way over your neighbors land to and from your land. You couldn't wouldn't be allowed to do that. NONE of you would put up with that. A walkway over your property! That is what this ladder was, a temporary walkway built over this guys land. I see damages if this becomes an allowed thing, but doubt he will get any. I also see a lot of hypocrisy and Greed is NOT exclusive to wealthy people... It's everywhere
Im with Jaq on this. I would like to see it resolved and land opened up but don't think a landowner who played by the rules should have to suffer a loss in value because rules are not enforced. If the rule changes, well that happens. Like a coal mine coming in next door. All kinds of things affect property values. All property is taxed by the fair market value which is determined hugely by what is around it that the owner does not pay tax on.. Every property is like this not just a big ranch next to landlocked forest. Yours also. Ranchers can just put up a really tall corner post so the ladder has to be 30 ft high. I can see it now. Dude dragging 40 ft ladder falls and lands owned by private then sues private guy and wins millions. Because obviously the private guy is greedy. ha
For Colorado, I think a better approach than tryng to force access may be negotiating access.
Money, access to the land owner tag draw, access to Habitat Partnership Program and crop damage funds are possible bargaining chips to obtain foot access at public corners.
Just brainstorming.
I also think landlocked public land should be allowed to be accessed for FREE. But what about the landowner who losses $$$$$ because of it? Many paid for land knowing the $$$$ access fees and hunters would pay them to hunt/cross their land.
I cannot say enough I HATE the landlocked land, but screwing hundreds of landowners out of money is not ok with me either.
I do not have a solution. I am ok with what those hunters did and do not think they should be charged. I guess I am "On the fence" on this one. Pun intended.
Glunt, it will be really interesting to see how this CO bill proceeds, if in fact it does. Right now it sounds like there was enough Dem pushback in committee that it has been tabled until November while a task force looks for compromises that might make it more palatable to both sides.
But the support from hunters for this bill appears to lawmakers to be very weak, with virtually no support from the REI bunch and only one hunter testifying at the last hearing. Meanwhile, landowner organizations are all over it.
One interesting and somewhat curious thing - if you look at the locations of the corner-crossing outrage posters here and on other forums, the furor seems to be mostly from hunters who aren't westerners.
"If I were the property owner where they end up, the hunter would NOT be allowed to recover it." - A real douche
I can hear the warden now...Sir, why did you shoot 12 antelope here. Well, the guy that owns that land over there won,t let me retrieve an animal that makes it to his property line. Sooo? I kept shooting til one died on this side of the line.
DanaC Correct, part of private lands value is from lan locking land, and yes they are paying property taxes on that "added" value. Please understand that I am not for this and I hate landlocked land in WY - but many ranchers have bought land based on the huge income they get from outfitters and trespass fees. To take that away overnight is unfair. How much value is a huge battle:)
Lost Arra is right about 3 values, and they are not typically the same.
JSW is right about owning airspace over your land to certain height (at least that is how it is here in Ohio). Otherwise you could building a"diving" board, over your neighbors yard and walk around on it right over his head!
If I lived in WY I would corner cross like they did. A landowner going after me would hesitate - elk mnt LOST and spend who knows how much - and now you might be able cite this case. I think cases have to be ruled on at a certain level to be used in future cases as examples (citing a case). Not sure if that is correct and if yes if this case what at a high enough level.
I may not live out west, but we have a lot of public lands that join at corners. We corner hop all the time. I have also heard sheriffs being called and all they wanted to know was if you knew for sure where the corner was. The one I heard of had a marker and the sheriff said, OK, your good. Landowner had to pound it (she is something special anyway). I find it aggravating that we have to pay taxes on public land but have no reasonable way to access it. Having to pay for a helicopter or pay the adjoining landowner thousands of dollars to access property that is ours to use is not what I call reasonable. The adjoining land owner can either buy the property or provide that corner access. No reason it should come off the tax payers dollar.
They lost to a sympathetic jury, but nothing precedent-setting happened in the case. BHA bought the hunters a good attorney. Let's remember that OJ was acquitted by a jury but that didn't suddenly make it legal to cut your ex-wife's head off. There will be more cases after this season, and we'll see how much of those legal fees, travel expenses, etc. will be paid by GoFundMe.
Both sides have good, valid arguments. Having the state pay landowners to permit public access might be a place to start. Access would likely have to be limited or the newly opened area would be overrun with hunters creating new problems.
Spot on Jaq. I like the idea of no one using it if not everyone can use it. Little sanctuaries everywhere
"On the other hand, there is so much available public land to hunt it is also laughable that hunters whine about not being able to access another piece of ground. They are doing so to gain an edge - not a bad idea, but not worthy of the division amongst those who should be working together."
You couldn't be more wrong. Obviously you haven't had 6 Californians walk in on you because the 900 acre piece of public next door had 14 ATVs crawling on it. Meanwhile, a mile away, there is 8,000 acres of landlocked BLM nobody but the rancher can access. I just described unit 211 in Colorado.
Jaquomo I completely agree.
Yeah because all those landowners are gonna stay off of that ground when there's no way to enforce it just like the little signs on the door that says no guns allowed will keep the bad guys away. Yeah right.
Won’t be long before guys are getting busted using drones. I’ve seen videos where guys ran elk for a mile or two flying over them just videoing them. Elk hate drone sounds. How’s that lawsuit gonna work out. Free airspace and just scouting. Gonna be hard to prove in court they were harassing wildlife. Some guys will start doing this trust me there’s idiots everywhere now days.
Won’t be long before guys are getting busted using drones. I’ve seen videos where guys ran elk for a mile or two flying over them just videoing them. Elk hate drone sounds. How’s that lawsuit gonna work out. Free airspace and just scouting. Gonna be hard to prove in court they were harassing wildlife. Some guys will start doing this trust me there’s idiots everywhere now days.
Recurve man: you described a C J Box novel. I can't remember which one.
I understand all of these points of view, however if it is defined as public land it should be accessible to the public.
Hackbow, that is an interesting take on the subject but it's still public ground. There is no reason to charge an inflated fee to access ground that is already owened by the American people. I get maintenance fees for parks and such areas but charging to gain access to a piece of public ground that you already own is like charging yourself to use your own bathroom.
"...a piece of public ground that you already own..."
You own it? Did you pay fair market value for it? Show me your deed. Maybe the government should have to figure out just how much public ground each citizen owns based on how much he pays in taxes, and then each person has to declare which parcel (likely based on a few square inches) he wants to use. This is the biggest problem/misunderstanding with this issue. You don't own it. It's held in public trust for everyone. Big difference.
In a perfect world, this would be solved with everyone left happy. But it's not a perfect world, and solutions aren't simple. There are more negatives to opening small public inholdings than positives. Maybe Trump can use these public lands to build his shining new cities for all to enjoy. ;-)
Why isn't everyone more concerned about a more egregious problem; locked up public lands in Alaska and Wyoming that can only be hunted with the PAYED help of a guide?
Assume I buy a section of land next to another section that happens to be a pristine section of timber. The seller and I will come to an agreement that the property is worth a specific price based on market conditions and perceived value. At any time, does the neighbor who owns the timbered land next to mine have any obligation to keep his land in that same condition in perpetuity? If he decides to clear-cut and develop it, my property value might change for the better or the worse. The risk of ownership is on me. The argument that a lifetime of taxes paid on the value of a parcel that is partially derived from surrounding land status (which is not mine) is a valid reason that the public should not have access to public land is ludicrous. The fact that property values are based in part on the status quo of surrounding properties is simply a reality. It's also a reality that the status of those properties (local codes withstanding) can change and affect the value of yours. The corner crossing issue has been and continues to be cronyism at best. The idea that you have a right to control what is not 'yours' and in principle is collectively 'ours' exists only because of lobbying and the significant amount of disposable litigation dollars at work. In principle it is wrong and the defenders know it in their hearts.
Bill, you're making way too much sense. Get out of here with your honest logical nonsense.
Ziek, the US gov't owns about 640 million acres, and the US population is about 334 million. Around 1.9 acres per person.
I will ask this again to the "Public Land Owners": show us any legal document or declaration that says the general public has the right to access all government-owned land. If you truly "own" it, you should be able access it any time. I'll wait...
Let me get this straight, if my property butts up against BLM land on one of the four sides and I sell a easement to BLM for public access. I now can be sued by the other 3 land owners.
Also that you should not hunt say with in the travel distance of a bullet from a house because its not safe. I know that in. Pennsylvania a person was shot from a from my 7 mm bullet that traveled 1.5 miles. So we should in the name of safety, not hunt say with in 2 miles of a house. To me that sounds like something a anti gun, anti hunter would say. Oh wait it all ready has. Me Bad.
Some of the points here about not allowing access are just dumb. If the elk mtn wins this will open up law suits agaist every land own the sold land or wants to sell land for public access, cuz by you selling it you devaluate my land.
Jaquomo, I think it's implicit on the words "government of the people, by the people...". 'Government' isn't 'other', it's _us_.
Yeah, some 'government' property needs to be secured, like military bases and offices after hours, but lands?
Ziek, hell yes I own it and so do you just the same.
It needs to be clear here that the land in question is absolutely open to the public for recreational use, within stated regulations of course. The issue here is not open or restricted use public land. The issue is ACCESS to ALREADY OPEN public land. Yes PUBLIC LAND, because who is “the government”? The public of course.
Thornton. Yes, I know what you are saying. But I am not talking about forest service service or BLM land. I am referring to Colorado state trust land. Many of those parcels are leased to private individuals/ companies to include hunting rights.
Oh, I see Cnelk already made that point :-). To be clear on my stance, if it’s against the law, I won’t do it. But I think the law is wrong. Maybe once I retire, I WILL testify at hearings to change it. Of course, NRs have no clout in places like Colorado. For now I just make comments on the internet that have no effect! LOL
Two years ago when the Cameron Peak fire happened, the USFS closed off almost all of Roosevelt National Forest, even for months after the fire was out and many miles from where the fire stopped. People who parked on county roads and walked into the National Forest (so-called "public land") to hunt or forage for mushrooms were cited for trespassing.
If we "own" it, how can we be cited for trespassing on our own land? Oh wait, I know...just because the government owns it doesn't mean we can access it, even if no private land is involved. So much for that "Public Land Owner" tshirt. Maybe change the slogan to "Public Land User".
The government can put restrictions on whatever and whenever they want BUT if a piece of PUBLICLY OWNED land is being blocked and used by a select few and also being used to make a profit while excluding the PUBLIC that OWNS the land then there's a problem.
""If I were the property owner where they end up, the hunter would NOT be allowed to recover it." - A real douche"
The hunt doesn't end when you pull the trigger. You have a responsibility, a legal responsibility in most places, to do everything possible to recover an animal you've hit. It's also illegal to trespass in that pursuit, in some (most?) states. Sometimes it happens that it's not possible to get that permission. But if you choose to hunt such a small parcel of land that it's highly probable even a well hit animal could leave "your" land, without gaining permission ahead of time to pursue it onto someone else's adjacent land, who is the douche? A good case could be made that you didn't do everything the law requires to recover the animal, since a reasonable person would have anticipated the problem.
Even if corner crossing by the public becomes legal, it's possible, or even likely that some uses will be prohibited. As I've already pointed out, some states prevent me from hunting on "my" land, DIY already. Allow corner crossing while prohibiting it for hunting, would likely solve all the problems. You get access to "your" land with a restriction that is already accepted on much of our public lands.
"The government can put restrictions on whatever and whenever they want BUT if a piece of PUBLICLY OWNED land is being blocked and used by a select few and also being used to make a profit while excluding the PUBLIC that OWNS the land then there's a problem."
You just described the Wyoming wilderness law. Why aren't all you easterners all fired up about thatm
I am fired up about that, but that dont totally restricted me from using it. But I think this will open up "public" land sooner if Elk mtn loose. If Elk mtn looses it will set precedence, which will upset a few and benefit much more. Kinda like the legal system knows that if they win, no one will be able to sell a right away to public land. Because if you do, your neighbors land value could drop opening you up for a lawsuit. Do I know the out come, no. But I do know that every year more and more folks are saying open up the landlocked land and not just hunters.
There are public 'land trades' all the time. If there's a isolated parcel that benefits the surrounding private/public it will be traded.
Teeton, who, besides hunters, are on the corner-crossing train? Example, please. In a state as outdoorsy as Colorado, it seems like just one REI spandex hiker or birdwatcher would have showed up to testify in favor of the current bill to legalize corner crossing. Just one. Instead, it was crickets from everybody except one hunter and somebody from BHA. The general outdoor public has no interest. Only a few hunters care.
Not sure where you're getting the idea about this discouraging negotiation of easements by USFS to reach landlocked government land. They do it all the time. I drive across two different corners where easements were negotiated, with multiple property owners on each side of the corners. These are small 35 acre parcels that border the government sections. Nobody sued anybody, and the roads go right across their corners.
The Elk Mountain case only affects that one county in WY, and since it was a jury trial and not a judge ruling, it has no weight at all. They just avoided paying the fine. Like I posted earlier, OJ got off by a jury, but that didn't make murder legal. Our county sheriff and DA here and in adjoining counties are going to keep on writing trespassing tickets to corner-crossers until either the law is changed or a judge rules on it.
Those Elk Mountain trespassers should have requested a judge instead of a jury. Then it would have held more weight, but they knew a sympathetic jury was likely their only chance. As it is, the outcome of that case means nothing, and neither does the civil suit. The next bunch of nonresidents who try it will face the same situation, and it will be expensive for them if BHA doesn't bankroll that case too.
If you want to do something productive, convince your congresscritter to introduce a bill in the House to codify this nationwide. That's how it gets fixed. A Bowsiter convinced his new State Representative to introduce the bill in CO, and that's going over like a turd in a punchbowl. She even said she was too new and should have researched this more before diving into the punchbowl and dealing with so much backlash. Even the socialists are backing away from it.
Lots of good points here I wish we had a like button on here.
Jaquomo, if the hunters win. I see more than just hunter corner hoping. Why do you think the land owners on coners do want folk hoping over there air space? Also why do you think a jury was symptomatic to them?
I have no idea why the jury was sympathetic, except to say their attorneys did a good job in the jury selection process, and the government attorneys didn't appear to be very sharp. Why was OJ found not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
There is no reason for anyone besides hunters to access these landlocked pieces, except maybe a few fishermen, and they aren't interested. If they were, they would be speaking out in favor of the CO bill.
As far as why landowners don't want the entire Sitka Army tromping across their property to reach adjoining government land speaks for itself. You wouldn't either if you owned the property. You would be called "greedy and "selfish" on hunting forums. If it becomes legal, OnX will have a tab showing all the corners so nobody has to search them out, and someone will come up with an app that rates their huntability, species, ease of drawing tags, etc.. The first couple years will be a zoo in some places, until people figure out those spots are just as crowded as everywhere else, and likely more so after they are publicized. And they will be. Heavily.
Again, most easterners seem to think this is about a couple of big ranches owned by rich fat guys. The reality is that there are 27,120 corners to deal with. If the hunters win one civil suit involving one corner, it won't mean squat. My sheriff will say, "Good for them" as he writes out the trespassing tickets to the other guys who might try to point to that case as precedent for anything.
Jags reality seems to involve a lot of tin foil.
Sorry, dude, but I've been studying this issue for over 50 years, since college. I live in checkerboard country and would love to be able to access some of those corners. I've studied the law, and interviewed sheriffs, game wardens, and DAs about it. My "reality" is based upon facts.
Your reality, however, seems to revolve around calling people schoolyard names and throwing out infantile insults with no understanding of the true magnitude, or complexity of the situation. It doesn't serve your credibility well, my friend.
But if the sheriff writes a ticket and the court dismisses the ticket then the ticket is as good as toilet paper.
Could it be that the jury sympathetic not to the hunters, but to corner crossing it self or could it be that the DA didnt try hard hard because they were sympathetic to corner crossing???
And if you think that most anyone here thinks that the land owner are worried about folks crossing there air space. Really??? You and I and everyone else here knows it's about folks hunting and using "THERE" BLM LAND. How many folks you know been arrested for walking a property line with there arm over it??
It would not surprise me if some folks that get to hunt blm land with permission to trespass are now not going to have blm land all to themself and that upsets them.
Everyone have a good night, I'm off the dinner with some friends.
ahawkeye, you're right, but it was an expensive adventure and if not for the GoFundMe cash, those hunters would have been out a bunch of money to fight it even though that one particular jury in one county ruled in their favor. The court isn't throwing out the tickets for corner crossing in my county and others around it.
Of course it's about hunters wanting to hunt landlocked land. Greedy hunters who aren't satisfied with the millions of acres we have now. It ain't birdwatchers making a stink about it, and nobody is charging $15K to cross it to look at meadowlarks. Hunting is big money out here, and the corner crossing situation has been this way for 140 years.
So this season there will likely be more tickets issued to hunters who mistakenly think this case somehow "legalizes" corner crossing, and we shall see how many of those get thrown out, and who foots the bill for the guys to travel back here from wherever, miss work, pay attorney fees, lodging, food, etc.. And I predict there will be at least 10 more Bowsite threads about it, too.
Well I was in this exact boat last year in MT. 4 pieces came together 2 were state land and 2 were owned by 2 different ranches. The owner A of one piece patrols and harasses the elk because of a bluff he can set on and glass. I came in on state from the road and crossed the 4 corners using the wood fence. Hunted all day and the evening the elk busted off of the state ground and went on the adjacent land owner B who I’ve never been able to contact because they won’t return the call. I was headed to my truck and at the 4 corners sets the rancher from A property and asked me what I’m doing and I politely said elk hunting. He says not here you’re not, I said I’m on state ground. He proceeded to tell me I cannot cross the fence. I said why not and he says because you’ll get on my property and I don’t allow any hunting. The guy was a huge Dick to say the least. I did my best to keep my cool. I walked down the fence and crossed onto the landowner B and then crossed back to state. He threatened to call the game warden for trespassing on the other land owner. By that time I’d had enough of his shit and told him to call him and we could wait and I’ll pay the fine and you’ll be happy. I then asked if he had a satellite phone because of no service he could use mine and he said FU. I then was just about as pissed as he was. We continued to FU each other and I loaded my stuff and headed out.
Probably the sweetest part of it all is I left first and it was a two track dirt road and he was on a cab less side by side. Every time his lights were out of sight I’d stop and let him catch up so he could enjoy the dust. Took about 1.5 hrs to go 15 mile. I laughed the whole way to the Highway. Wasn’t a leaf stirring that evening.
Ok greedy hunters but not greedy land owners? Come on? Really? I realize what the status quo is but as I said a couple months ago these times be a changin'! Case in point who the hell ever thought pot would be legal anywhere 40 years ago?
Recurve man. Great story.
Would love to know the real one
Not sure what to tell ya RK. That’s the 100% the truth.
Jaq how many acres of landlocked behind your place?
I've always thought it was weird to have public land that's inaccessible. Every piece should have a road allowance or easement to it. I'm speaking for Manitoba and no other jurisdictions.
“It’s government land, not public land” seems to be an echo in this thread that isn’t true at all. Yes, there are government lands that have immense barriers to entry (military bases, for example) but the lands in question are not like that at all. Their ONLY barrier to entry is the corner crossing grey area, they are not specifically marked do not enter, and there is no discrimination as to who can occupy them aside from access. They are public land. Period.
Personally, I wish they weren’t. I wish BLM would shut down all access, and not allow the owners to cornercross either. I bet these ranchers would support corner crossing pretty darn quick if push came to shove. “But they have to have a legal easement into land that they own!” With that logic, the government (in some regard) should be entitled to the same rights of easement allotment in regard to their land (therefore, public access point since it is public land and NOT “government land” Very very very selfish of the landowners to think they have premier and exclusive access to land that literally isn’t theirs and never will be.
Are there millions of acres that are accessible to the public? Yes. Does that justify these chunks of public not being accessible? Absolutely not. Can’t believe there are otherwise level-headed folks in here blatantly arguing against the access of (publically) owned lands. If the landowners should be able to access their corner locked sections, so should we.
The landowners knew how many acres they were buying when they bought their farms. The bill of sale did not include exclusive access to public lands. If the landowners complain about property devaluation, tough, I don’t care in the slightest. Would it devalue my property if my neighbor covered his entire farm in solar panels or windmills or piled trash in his yard ten foot high? Yes. Do I have any right to legally block him from doing so solely based on the fact that it would hurt the value of my land compared to when I bought it? Absolutely not.
The fact that bowsite can’t even unify behind opening access to public hunting lands is sad, but not surprising.
The land IS accessible le, just not easily. Randy Newburg proved this by helicoptering in.
It's legal.precedent that land owns the airspace for some number of feet. Argue all you want, but that's established law.
I donr care about landowners value, but I do care about landowner rights. Forcing an easement is taking private property, it's wrong.
They grey area is when you corner criss, by law you ARE on private land, however you are ALSO on publicly accessible land. How can you be in 2 places, with opposite rules, at the same time?
My county in WY won't prosecute IF there's a marked corner and you step over. Lack of corner lost they will ticket
The inconsistency is a mess
"Would it devalue my property if my neighbor covered his entire farm in solar panels or windmills or piled trash in his yard ten foot high? Yes. Do I have any right to legally block him from doing so solely based on the fact that it would hurt the value of my land compared to when I bought it? Absolutely not."
You obviously don't understand the issue. In most places your neighbor would NOT be allowed to do any of that because there are laws and zoning issues in place to prevent it. I live in unincorporated Larimer County. Most properties are 40 acres. We were forced to petition the courts to have a trouble maker neighbor clean up all the trash and junk he was accumulating because it was a property value issue, and what he was doing was illegal.. And the issue with corner crossing is TRESPASSING, not land values. Land values only come into play as a penalty for the trespass.
I don't understand why a few people, hunters, who are already under attack from all sides in a society that is becoming more urban, try's to force issues that make them more unpopular, when they have very little to gain if they are successful.
I have no answer or skin in this game, and see both sides of the argument, but just off the top of my head........ Any current land owner who owns one of these corners is going to be "out" to get the hunter if some type of arrangement comes out against him.... Better put the animal down, because I doubt the landowner is going to give permission to recover an animal that runs on his property. Parking issues, trash, long term campsites, minor trespass issues are all going to be ongoing battles for wardens, hunters and the landowner. Give it a short time and the general hunting population will ruin it.
PushCo, there is NO landlocked government land anywhere that I can access. Only National Forest that anybody can access. I got permission to cross one corner last year and the hunting sucked in the landlocked piece. I went back to the more accessible NF.
Some of you guys think I'm against corner crossing. I'm against hunters breaking the law and making ourselves look like jerks, and screwing up our relationships with those landowners who do allow access or corner crossing. If the law is changed and corner crossing is allowed, I will be the first one across one prime corner to hunt elk, and will be followed by 30 more guys.
IMO, hunters for the most part are not real intelligent, organized, or educated. Many still subscribe to the Bubba attitude which has never served us well.
MB, absolute truth. The in-your-face, screw-you, "Happiness is a warm gutpile" bunch have not helped our image with the 97% of voters who don't hunt. This is just another example.
Jaq, I can go with that, I don't want hunters breaking the law either.
Here in Colorado landowners own to the centerline of the river on many navigable rivers, but it's legal to float if you don't touch the river bed. Obviously you are over their airspace... How's that consistent? I'm aware of the law that allows it FYI....
My point being there is absolutely 0 consistency with the law in regards to access from state to state, with enforcement etc. Landowners are the first to ask for easements to access their land across public, you just can't go making a road across public land. Yet they are the first to complain about anyone else using public lands? Maybe they should land swap and consolidate their ground into a contiguous parcel if it's such an issue... No, why? greed of possessing more than you actually own, and they don't have to pay tax on it.
Interesting how a good business decision is often referred to as "greed" by socialists.
A good business decision would be buying your land at a fair price and having a sound plan to profit (monetarily or through experiences/leisure) off of the land that you bought. I don’t see how someone is a socialist for thinking that landowners should only control the land they own and not have authority over the land that they don’t own? Like I’ve stated before, they weren’t deeded the PUBLIC land and therefore have no authority over it. As has been stated before, there are numerous inconsistencies regarding this and no set in stone law. If they have unrestricted access to their landlocked parcels, we should have unrestricted access to ours (within the rules set forth by the managerial restrictions that the land falls under). They cross our corners to get to their land, we should be able to cross their corners to get to ours.
Jaq good business decisions are often based on greed. We're not talking about a business we are talking about state and federal land management. A small percentage of landowners have exerted far to much control over landlocked PUBLIC property for far to long. Those people who bought property because of the added value of landlocked public with the assumption nothing would ever change should study history a little closer. Change is the only thing certain about the future. At least for once this liberal wokism is actually benefiting hunter's. These people are easily riled and manipulated I agree with Jaq that no bird watcher's or granola munchers are going to be out there corner crossing. But I disagree about them not caring. Sell it as the public being locked out by rich 1% of their land and watch them work their whining magic. Anyone who thinks the non hunting public can't effect this is crazy and wasn't paying attention to the wolf agenda. It's time to stop using upright tactics these people aren't interested in a fair fight we need to take a page or two from the other sides play book. I'm the very proud owner of 214 acres in Pushmataha County Oklahoma that I bought based on the merit of the land not the surrounding land i wouldn't own. I'm very pro private property rights but this isn't about private property it's about public being treated like private by a select few.
Unfortunately the woke wolf lovers would rather keep the land open to wolves and other predators, all while keeping out or minimizing human hunters. And, the disputed lands, as well as private parcels, are already open to predators. Good luck rallying the woke wolf lovers to support the Bubbas, ain't going to happen.
As I read through these posts, I see an awful lot of "should" and "need to" being used. "Should" is for dreamers. I live in reality.
The reality is that until a state or Congress changes or clarifies the law, or a federal appeals court rules on it, it is considered unlawful by BLM and many county jurisdictions to cross at corners. As far as I know, USFS hasn't taken an official position and is leaving it up to local LEO. In my county, the tickets are being issued for hopping NF corners, since we have very little BLM.
You guys can "should" this thing to death and it won't change a thing. If you have followed this closely, it is very clear this issue is not even on the radar of anyone except handful of hunters. It wasn't on the radar of the legislators in CO until HB1066 was introduced,and it made it out of Appropriations Committee yesterday, so we will see where it goes. And very few hunters care enough to do anything besides complain on forums. If somebody wants to pony up $4-6 million to put it on the ballot and run a compelling campaign, it might get some traction. But since the Stop The Wolf campaign only raised @$300K, it's highly doubtful this would get beyond a couple pint nights.
As MB accurately points out, granola munchers, bird watchers, wolf lovers, Front Range soccer moms and golf dads aren't going to lift a finger or donate a nickel to help hunters get another square foot of hunting land. If a referendum was introduced in CO to ban bowhunting, I believe it would pass easily. Nobody likes bowhunters except bowhunters, and that includes the CPW.
What all you nonresidents who are desperate to get across a corner "should" do is start calling the sheriff's departments in those counties where you want to trespass, and flat out ask them if they ticket corner crossers. If they don't, go for it. If they do, cross at your own risk or make a statement like the guys did on Elk Mountain, and spend the money to fight it in court.
Then you can tell the sheriff and the county DA how they "should" look the other way because you don't like how the land was divided up back in the 1880s, with no access easements dedicated for hunters, the landowners are just greedy bastards, you are being locked out of "your" land, the airspace ruling is bogus, you aren't hurting anything, and see how that works out for you.
The only solution to access is to pay a helicopter service to drop in and out of the public land. Why pay a rancher big money what is state wildlife anyway and give the rancher a free reign over the public land which he/she doesn't own. If it is not accessible by public and only by the private land owner then they should be tax for recreational land if using as a private hunting venture, but we need to give more younger hunters access to keep hunting, snark.
Jacquomo understand completely, many years ago was floating a river for small mouthed had a lady yelling throwing sticks at us to get off her property, just told her we were not on her land just the water way and kept fishing down stream, still had to dodge a stick:)
There's been a new development as of Thursday....the attorneys for Elk Mountain ranch subpoenaed OnX data from the Missouri guys and found waypoints on Elk Mountain deeded property. They are now offering to drop the civil claim if the Federal Judge will rule that they were guilty of trespassing.
So much for just wanting to corner hop to hunt "their" public land. Sort of ironic, since OnX is leading the charge to open up landlocked land, that their own data may be used to convict these guys.
Anyone who has a frontal lobe knows you can add a way point to anywhere from anywhere. Keep grasping for straws.
Haha, not grasping for anything, just reporting the facts. I would think a hunter trying to test the law wouldn't deliberately drop a waypoint on the private land he was claiming to avoid, but as MB also astutely pointed out, hunters as a whole are not the most intelligent bunch.
Just let the government sell it to private citizens. Then people can buy, lease, outfit, etc. Problem solved and that's how hunters want it anyway.
Not uncommon for people to drop waypoints to places they have never stepped foot on, private or public. Without a actual track showing where they walked this really proves nothing. Also I didn't realize just NR are the ones that corner hop, and where the "greedy ones"
The government sells it, trades, buys it all the time. The big chunk of BLM where I grew up hunting elk was traded to an adjoining ranch, and it had legal road access. Not landlocked in any way. Roughly 15 sections of landlocked private checkerboard were purchased outright by the USFS a few miles from where I live, making one big contiguous block accessible by county road on one side, and a vehicle easement through private property on the other end. BLM has land auctions regularly.
The best one I personally know about was when USFS wanted to gain access to a big chunk of NF that wasn't landlocked, but very difficult to access on foot. So they told the owner to find a property he liked. He was an elk outfitter. So he ended up with a ranch that I had previously had permission to hunt before the trade, and received about 4 acres for every one he traded. He said the elk hunting was waaay better on the new place. Meanwhile, with the new easy access, his old place was totally overrun with hunters, and the hunting was awful after the first season.
Reading this thread has been interesting (to a guy who's never experienced these situations). I'm only a state away but it's very different here! I tend to side with landowner rights. I have some land and if I don't want someone on it I feel I shouldn't have to justify or fight to make that happen. If someone was smart enough and hard working enough to buy land that puts them in a great situation then good on them. On the other hand if the government owned land that is supposed to be open for public use but it isn't, then there should be effort to rectify the situation. Honestly though with the government calling for programs such as 30x30 can we expect them to support outdoor activities by citizens?
"There's been a new development as of Thursday....the attorneys for Elk Mountain ranch subpoenaed OnX data from the Missouri guys and found waypoints on Elk Mountain deeded property. They are now offering to drop the civil claim if the Federal Judge will rule that they were guilty of trespassing."
OK. If the hunters did trespass by setting foot on private land, where did the trespass occur? At the corner while corner crossing, or elsewhere?
Even if this case is reversed base on new facts of touching the private land, the current ruling of "no trespass" based on the corner crossing if they did not touch the private land still has opened the door for the next case.
The law sometimes moves slowly. Momentum is moving towards having the corner crossing issues coming to a head. As the US human population grows, pressure to access these lands will only grow. There will be a next case.
Sure - we all drop waypoints on high dollar private ranches where we have no intention of hunting! Lol! Trespassers would have no reason to lie, right?!
So, the claimed trespass waypoint is not part of the actual corner crossing event.... The criminal court ruling would still stand regarding the ladder assisted corner crossing.
I've dropped plenty of waypoints that I'll never make it to, I've dropped points on private ground as well that's not proof of trespassing.
I wonder what the legality of a helicopter dropping folks in would be. How high do these landowners think there property line are. Sounds like a business opportunity wanting to happen.
Nchunter, I think they already do that.
a hawkeye, respectfully, why would you drop waypoints on someone else's land where you don't have permission to hunt? What purpose does it serve?
Any number of purposes, presumed water sources, or presumed blinds or stands. Hell I marked a windmill once. It doesn't mean you're hunting that spot.
Fair enough. Different from how I hunt, I guess.
I understand, but knowing where other hunters are or may be posted may help someone decide where not to hunt or lets say from a whitetail hunter's perspective you might mark a possible bedding area on private then the deer move to a food source on public. You know well enough you're not going to have every piece of the puzzle right away so marking things helps, even if it's on private. That doesn't mean I'm going over there it just means "that thing" is there.
I have hundreds of points in OnX, many of which are on private that I will never have access to. As was mentioned above, I use the points when scouting for various reasons and trying to figure animal movements or destination spots. Patterning animals, landmarks, specific terrain, funnel spots, food or water sources, the list goes on. These guys having a onxpoint on private land is completely reasonable without having to assume they actually trespassed. Good question on behalf of the rancher owner, but not something the judge will likely consider outside of further evidence.
Hiring a helecopter has its own issues. Depending on the land, a commercial use permit and permission from the managing agency to land is likely required. It's been done but if possible, will require some hoops be jumped through. If an outfitter/ranch already has a commercial use permit on the public, the agency would likely not be open to another commercial hunting related use overlapping. Not to mention the general issue of managers not being quick to grant optional special access when it may result in a hassle. Just getting seasonal gates open according to their own dates can be an issue.
Only way they can prove it is if they had their tracking app on while marking waypoints or to subpoena the GPS on their phones.
Thorton, I agree 100%. Likely did not have tracking on personally it chews up a lot of data on my phone.
Elk is different, but I commonly drop waypoints on landowners near home where I hunt, and I've done it a LOT in other states when I'm hunting pheasants.
The reason I do it, is I drive by and notice something, or see good habitat, and I drop a pin on that place so that I can later ask permission to hunt there. Like I said, not maybe what's happening with elk. Much easier I'd imagine to get permission for pheasant versus elk :)
A way point on private is absolutely not proof of trespassing. Here's a screen shot of where I turkey hunted this year. I posted the red way point on private while sitting in my truck on a county road scouting one evening. The black way point is where I killed my bird off legally accessible public. I never set one foot on private the entire hunt and have multiple way points from flocks or birds spotted on private adjacent to public.
1 waypoint in essentially a void of others most likely was dropped from somewhere else. Maybe they saw elk there from a distance and headed that way. Maybe it's a water source etc
It’s well established that anyone who can comprehend reality that a dropped waypoint does not equal trespassing. Eishelman is a dipshit who is grasping for anything to try and get his way. The irony is that had he kept his mouth shut he would have 4 people using the checkerboard. Soon he will have hundreds.
When GPS mapping was first getting available a buddy found a great access point to a small piece of public in the middle of a huge ranch with amazing hunting. Land owner was unhappy and drama ensued.
The game warden confirmed it was legal and my buddy told the surrounding owner that he would be happy to park somewhere out of sight on the private because he didn't really want everyone in the small town to figure it out either. The owner agreed and gave permission to park on his land.
A couple years later the owner changed his mind and revoked permission so he had to park on the county rd.
Word got out as people saw his rig and the small but awesome spot soon wasn't awesome anymore. The land owner has a lot more folks to be mad about and the honeyhole is now nothing special to hunt.
Anybody this this is going to play out like legalized pot, and it’ll get to where the law is so widely disregarded that it gets changed just to save the hassle?
Lots more money at risk for the current landowners, and they have more to spend on lobbying for the status quo, and I suppose local judges may not be too opposed to prosecuting non-residents, so we’ll see, I expect…
Pretty hilarious to see elkhmpr going Socialist on this topic, though - he’s Conservative through and through, alright- just as long as that suits his personal agenda…. SMH.
I don't get the "Socialist" labels on this subject, why would you call someone a socialist who just wants to use land that is already owned by the US public? This land is NOT owned by private entities.
Does Anti-Capitalist sound better? Whether you like it or not, these landowners took a look at an opportunity and bought in. Now they’re using the law to protect their investments. Free Enterprise at work.
Personally, I’d like to win the lottery and buy up land, then trade it 1 acre for 4 as related earlier. Sounds like a SCREAMIN deal!!
Then it’s Cow-hunt at my place for some folks who’re assets to my community and treat people right.
You getting your head out of your ass sounds a lot better to me.
Rancher is just blowing hot air IMO. I had one do this to me in an agricultural lawsuit when he said I trespassed to put up a new fence. He had no proof, but I sent his attorney pictures of him and his hired hand inside my gate after their lease expired. They dropped the trespass charges before the next court date.
https://wyofile.com/judge-rules-in-favor-of-corner-crossing-hunters/
I thought Jaquomo said this would never happen????
Orion, I know what you mean! Jaq as I said in the other thread on this ruling, the federal judge has spoken, the jury has spoken and the local officials spoke until they were strong armed. The Winds of Change are blowing. Don't give me "The sheriff in my County will give you a ticket" " the words should and shouldn't aren't relevant here" " this doesn't set precedence" I'm here to tell you, IT IS HAPPENING.
There is some public land here in Wisconsin that I would like to check out but it is landlocked behind other private parcels with no "corner" to cross. I wish states and the federal government could work this out, once and for all, so all parties could have some clarity on the issue.
Well, that’s a win for the sportsmen the way I see it..
It will be a win if it survives appellate court challenges and the USSC either rules on it or declines to hear it.
Meantime, the sheriff in my county and the other one where I hunt and fish still plan to write tickets. The lawyers for the lucky hunters who decide to fight them can cite this ruling as precedent. That's where it is now.
Righteousness always prevails… I’m sitting at 4 or so points in WY. Not sure what unit this rancher’s property is in, but I might put in for his unit next year just to corner cross out of spite. I sincerely hope everybody who draws a tag in that unit corner crosses his ranch this season.
Looking forward to hopping it myself.
Those are some big-ass implications…
Be interesting to see how this plays out….
I think this will slowly open up landlocked public land. Now is the time to start pressing politicians to start rewriting these laws.
"The lawyers for the lucky hunters..."
you remind me of the person that calls the cops on the kids with the lemonade stand because they don't have a business license.
They win in criminal trial via a unanimous jury decision. The federal case against them just got pecker slapped by the judge, but one guy thinks they are lucky? I bet his sheriff buddy is in his imagination.
Be interesting to see how many join in gleeful celebration if and when this is upheld in appellate courts and the SCOTUS. Because the implications will reach a whole lot further than a few thousand elk hunters wanting to access landlocked property. Suddenly the property you bought in PA that borders SF or NF and with really no access to the public land except thru YOUR property is in the crosshairs. Easements or ROW's are forced on YOU. The property you bought at a somewhat inflated price cuz the realtor jacked up the price BECAUSE it borders public land, albeit with difficult access.
I'd love to see a solution worked out between land owners and hunters. But that will never happen. Because we dumb phucs created the situation by being more than willing to drop astronomical $$'s to hunt a public resource. And ranchers and landowners are more than willing to capitalize on it. And rightly so. Everyone loves capitalism.... until it affects them and their pursuits.
Glad the rulings were favorable for the hunters involved. But sure is the ultimate internet honey hole blow up. Two years from now all the comments will be how hunting that piece of landlocked “isn’t what it used to be”.
^^^^ you have to draw the tags, it is a LQ area so it will not get over run with hunters so to speak. And, it is very mountainous, not a lot of folks have the where withal to hunt it. The lower ground yes, easy to access.
Can’t the ranchers just put two 40’ utility poles up right at the corner? Then the hunters would have to climb over with all their gear, that would be a pain in the a
"Can’t the ranchers just put two 40’ utility poles up right at the corner ? "
Even when the hunters grabbed two Elk Mountain Ranch fence posts, chained together as an obstacle at the first corner they encountered, and swung around them to step from public land to public land, they were protected by the UIA, which prevents landowners from blocking access to public land, the judge said.
Which landowners will be forced to maintain an easement? There are thousands of landowners with corners touching.
Mr. "dude", the Larimer County Sheriff's office number is 970-498-5100. Jackson County Sheriff is 970-723-4242. Feel free to call them and ask about being ticketed for corner crossing...
As I've explained before, over and over, I'm not against corner crossing if it is determined to be LEGAL. That hasn't happened yet. CO, WY, and MT legislatures all tried and failed. Now it needs to make it's way through the court system, and the way this SCOTUS is now, they are likely to push it back to the states.
I think all you puffed-up, big-talking keyboard warriors should go hop a corner in a great elk spot and see how that works out. If you PM me, I'll even give you suggestions on where to start. Two of them are awesome elk hunting on the other side. Maybe BHA will set up a GoFundMe page for you, too.
Dude, OJ was found not guilty by a unanimous jury too... You obviously have issues comprehending how the legal system works.
The more crazy but not surprising thing is how many of you would be in support of them “making” Land owners maintain an easement.
I think it is fascinating that a drone can, according to the Feds, violate your airspace at will, but that a person cannot jump over your property? The basis for our law is English common law, in England private landowners have been forced to maintain walkways across their land since the middle ages.
I think that the judge's ruling in this corner crossing case was a good thing and I hope it leads to opening up land locked checkerboard parcels and sections.
That being said, I believe that the judge's ruling applies only to checkerboard corner crossing situations where the surface of the private land is not being touched.
Allowing the government to infringe upon private property rights and force an easement across the surface of private property to access public land is an entirely different thing.
The judge says it isn’t trespassing with this ruling. Now the legislators have to make it a law before it is allowed ?
Here is a great post from someone who deals with these legal issues professionally. His post is spot on.
“I have not yet read the ruling but will offer general context. I will try to track down the actual ruling and give other thoughts later. (if you already have it post a link or PM it)
This is a case arising out of federal diversity jurisdiction and a federal question. This means the federal court is charged with applying WY state law as applied by the Supreme Court of WY, and federal law as applied by the federal courts on different issues within the case. That means appeals could go in several directions.
On matters of state law, a federal district court's ruling is NOT binding precedent on any state court at any level. It is binding in that specific federal court geography alone and even then only on federal law matters.
If the parties believe the federal court misinterpreted state law they can appeal to the WY Supreme Court. If they believe the federal legal approach to applying the state law, or the interpretation of the federal law elements, were wrong they can go to the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The 10th circ. can reverse but even that is not binding on any state court - but is binding on federal matters in the variety of states under 10th circuit (this does not include MT or ID for example).
If a WY state supreme court ruling or the 10th circ ruling is unacceptable appeals can be made to SCOTUS - a SCOTUS ruling is binding on all state and federal courts.
Also, depending on the specific ruling, there may be state by state legislative responses that could muddy the waters for hunters. It is also not clear that criminal trespass was at issue - this was a civil case and the outcomes could (shouldn't but could) vary.
If I was a checkerboard land owner outside of WY, I would pay this landowner not to appeal - just let it sit in WY. Failure to appeal does not add any authority to a ruling so it is not uncommon for folks with broad interests to let district court rulings sit rather than expanding the problem.
So, congratulations to all those involved in a great win, but this is not yet a simple get-out-of-jail-free card across the west. For now, it is best viewed as yet to be appealed "persuasive authority". A long way from established law - but a nice first step.”
Pretty much stopped caring how the British governed since 1775.
I agree Cheesehead, I am all for this ruling. Easements, if practical, need to be worked out with land owners imo. If the land owner does not agree then so be it. I don't think that should be forced on someone.
Interesting case for sure. If the LO doesn't appeal he'll be overrun with corner hoppers. The point made above that other LOs may discourage him from appealing to prevent the ruling from gaining more weight is interesting; it does seem that the further it goes in the courts the more it has potential to affect a lot more landowners.
I agree with that Aspen Ghost.
Funny watching Jaquomo doubling down
Jag might be OJs only fan as much as he swings from his n^ts.
I’m guessing the sheriffs in the 2 counties Jaq is talking about have been elected for years and they know who votes them in. Most hunters don’t have the money to fight it. So it turns out they get by with writing tickets every year and no one does anything about it.
I’m thinking a guy could use stilts and maybe have some luck corner crossing.
One of the Sheriff's was sworn in in January. Based on what I know about him and his predecessor, they aren't trying to "get by" with writing tickets. They are doing what they believe the law dictates.
I want access to public lands but I sympathize with land owners who paid a premium due to the access their land provides. I would be ok with clarifying it as being legal to corner hop but I recognize it takes something from people who were playing by the rules when they bought their land. No, I don't really sympathize with Elk Mountain because suing for millions over a few inches of airspace, entered for a few seconds, is silly. If this stands, he would have been better off ignoring them and hoping more guys don't find that corner.
Corner crossing is one thing, but forcing an easement for land locked is different to me.
Why sympathize? They still get the access.
Nobody is forcing easements and nowhere in the judges opinion does it indicate easements. That is just silly speculation by some fear monger.
"Why sympathize?..."
Because access along with everyone else is a lot different than exclusive access.
Exclusive is better for hunting and better for land value. I don't think it's reasonable to not be able to access public corner to corner by foot but that is the accepted rule in many places. Land owners take a loss if hopping gets deemed legal. That benefit they had, and in many cases paid a premium for, is lost without them doing anything wrong.
I won't shed a tear but I see the loss. On the other hand, wildlife and good hunting adds a giant premium to land value. "My" wildlife and the wildlife management "I" pay for created that premium and I haven't seen a check in the mail yet. I don't expect a tear to be shed for me either.
To my understand blm land get sold yes or no?? If theres a piece and say get sold or put up for auction. There 4 land owners that connect to it. Land owner A,B,C and D. So it gets sold to land owner C. So does this happen? Does any one feel that it should not of been sold because of it effects on the other land owners? Blm is founded by taxpayers, yes or no? Is folks that have exclusive use of this land doing so on my tax dollars?
Investing in land with a premium for what the neighboring land offers is a fools journey. You can never control what happens on the neighboring land. I can build out in the nice peaceful country. A few years later the neighboring land could become a turkey or pig farm or be developed into a subdivision or become a race track.
That's just how buying land is. So don't pay for the neighbors land unless you actually get the title.
True, but when I fight for a zoning change and build my combination pig farm/race track next to someone's beautiful new country place, I realize what I did to them.
Still no PM from any big, brave corner crossers itching to test the ruling.... I have a great corner to share that you can hop over in an OTC unit, get ticketed, and explain to the judge why an isolated case in WY applies down here. You'll be famous!
Guys the ruling only affects Wyoming right now. Lou is right about Colorado, they will and do write for corner crossing. Why you all shooting the messenger, he is right about CO.
No easements are being forced on LOs because of this ruling.
There are 200 any elk tags in 125 and 200 cow tags, not sure how many LOs tags are taken from that quota but I know some. I see the biggest issue now being other LOs are mad and will not allow hunting, only to folks they know now. It will have affects in that area, general area of the state not the hunting area. Already have lost HMAs or walk in areas because of the jury ruling.
Lou - don’t wait by the phone - the Bowsite Blowhards won’t ever call.
As you say, that isolated case in WY doesn't change things in CO. Well things are changing it may be slow but it is surely changing.
You know darn good and well that there will be guys that are ready to start hopping corners and there will be the LO's buddy on the sheriff's department writing tickets and there will be the ones that fight it out and site this case. I think the fire has been lit we'll see how fast it spreads.
I think corner crossing is not legal in wy.
So will guys jump corners in Co, I dont know, but I think it is going to become more prevalent over the next few years.
I guessing that the guys that jumped in Wy didn't paid a penny for anything.
I agree Teeton, on all accounts yes I think more will corner cross and more will fight it. I'm sure the Missouri guys that did it in Wyoming paid something if not outright money maybe lost wages but I would say there are more people that know about this than just our bow sight community. And some may be ready to take on that challenge we shall see!
Everyone have a wonderful holiday. Even that grumpy old guy on here. :)
“Investing in land with a premium for what the neighboring land offers is a fools journey“
Yep!! I own a ranch in Texas where that is happening. It is fairly remote for Texas and has always been surrounded by large ranches. But now they have all sold and are now 50-100 acre ranches.
Give me a year or 2 and I might be willing to ask for the location of that corner once I retire. I would prob test it in the summer first. Worse case scenario I pay a fine for trespassing. But I would like to see how this case goes a little longer.
This case may only be about an isolated case in Wyoming now, but legally things have a way of snowballing.
But for the most part I am a law abiding person and may not ever cross if it is still “illegal”. That said, that doesn’t stop me/us from trying to change that.
If it’s public, and it has exclusive use by a private landowner, it is private land. Either the govt offers to sell it to them at a reasonable cost, or we get access.
It depends on what “is” is?
It depends on what “public” is
As a young man we corner hopped more than a few times. Never even considered it could be illegal. Never saw anyone or had any issues.
First we ever heard about the controversy was after the internet and GPS became popular. We just used a compass and Forest Service map to find corner markers.
The main place we did it was to access a lake that now has a public road and shoreline due to land trades.
It was better fishing before that :^)
Teeton, guys already jump corners in CO. Some get caught and ticketed, most do not. Always have. But it used to be possible to get permission by politely asking, and most landowners didn't care so long as fences weren't torn down, gates left open, trash left behind. Not anymore.
The Missouri guys were funded by BHA. Can we expect them to fund every subsequent challenge? Guess we will find out, if some of you big brave hunters from the East get caught this year.
It appeared CO might be the first state to codify corner hopping, and as liberal as this legislature is, I thought it could possibly happen. But it failed in the Senate Appropriations committee. So for now, each individual case will be treated as trespassing in the court system until a higher court rules on it and it is upheld by appeal. Roy's explanation spells it out clearly.
Some of you guys are attacking me for telling the truth instead of blindly jumping into your wild-eyed fantasy land. Can't fix crazy. I'm not claiming it is right or wrong, just trying to explain what "is" is under current law, because I've studied this for 50 years. I want to hop corners too. There are corners all around me. And yes, I do "double down" on facts.
After your celebration hangovers subside, you'll understand that this WY case was isolated, set no precedent for anywhere else, and if you get caught and try to use the "But..but..Elk Mountain!" defense, the deputy will nod and smile as he writes out the ticket.
I don't think the Elk Mtn defense would be the right discussion for the deputy. Now if someone were to fight that ticket then I would think the Elk Mtn case may help the "Joe Public" hunter. I realize what the law says but I also realize that this marks a change in this gray area and at the very least points towards some clarity.
You guys know what a trespassing ticket costs in Colorado? Other than monetary it is 20 points against you. And that means you can’t hunt/fish in Colorado
Go ahead. Test those corners and landowners
That’s a big ding! And you would have to fight both. Assume you would have to be convicted first.
Here is a statute that supports your claim
https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-33/article-6/part-1/section-33-6-116/
If the Title 33 charge sticks, you can't hunt in 48 states. But it's tougher to prove intent to hunt vs.criminal trespass, so criminal trespass is what they file in the counties I hunt. People just pay the fine instead of hiring attorneys, missing time off work, paying travel and expenses to stay in Walden during the trial, etc..
Jaq, how many corner crossing tickets have been written in Wyoming? Frankly I'm not aware of any or at the least very, very few. Also the further you remove yourself from the front range you will see that corner crossing happens a lot in other parts of the state without any tickets or loss of hunting rights.
"If the Title 33 charge sticks, you can't hunt in 48 states. But it's tougher to prove intent to hunt vs.criminal trespass, so criminal trespass is what they file in the counties I hunt. People just pay the fine instead of hiring attorneys, missing time off work, paying travel and expenses to stay in Walden during the trial, etc.."
Pretty sopt on from what I've seen very few go past a simple fine. Wyoming depends on the county some enforce others don't.
I believe there have been with these 4 guys about 5 tickets written for corner crossing and the last before the 4 MO hunters was dismissed by the judge in Albany Co, or at least ruled in the hunter's favor.
Orion, I don't keep track of speculation. I deal in facts. I'm sure plenty of guys jump corners and never get caught. Lots of hunters bend the law in other ways. Plenty of people sell fentanyl and never get caught, too. What I do know is that in some counties in CO and WY, if the landowner calls out the LEO, the corner hoppers get a ticket.
Then again, why bother with hopping corners where you might get caught? Why not just go into the landlocked section anywhere it is easiest to access, where landowners may not be watching? I mean, its"your land", right?
If it isn't illegal, why have MT, WY, and CO legislatures all tried to make it legal, and failed.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out this fall, with a bunch of ignorant hunters thinking corner hopping is now somehow "legal", and with some landowners doubling down on prosecuting. Doesn't cost a property owner anything to call out the LEO, and cellular cameras are cheap.
"Then again, why bother with hopping corners where you might get caught? Why not just go into the landlocked section anywhere it is easiest to access, where landowners may not be watching? I mean, its"your land", right?"
That's a different situation, but if one wanted to helicopter in there wouldn't be much anyone ould do.
Ask Randy Newberg why he doesn't helicopter in to his landlocked BLM spot anymore. There are things they can do...
BTW, I have a taker for one of my Hotspot corners, who plans to test the law in CO by notifying the sheriff ahead of time. Should be interesting! And expensive!
I already know the Newberg story, not all parcels are the same.
"BTW, I have a taker for one of my Hotspot corners, who plans to test the law in CO by notifying the sheriff ahead of time. Should be interesting! And expensive!"
So... the guy is going to notify the sheriff that he intends to tresspass, when and where, then do it. Purpose; to get it in CO court and hope for a hunter favorable ruling?
Not "dude", but someone I think I trust to do what he says. That is his stated intent.
Nice! Let him know to post his go fund me here I'll gladly donate again to such a worthy cause.
No disrespect to "dude". That's my goto random name for people who are anonymous.
You gotta realize that in CO, “Dude” is pretty much an epithet. At least among the Natives….
I didn't expect that it could mean something negative. I'll edit my post...
I'll donate to the cause and can gather several more donations. To think this isn't going somewhere or that this doesn't carry weight in other circumstances is delusional at best. When you read the judges order/ruling it makes it very clear what that court thought about it all and there are others that will agree.
Should be interesting! I put some in the kitty too.
First thing is to see if the sherif is even interested in writing a ticket/ filing charges.
Oh, this sheriff writes tickets for this specific corner. There are cell cameras pointing in all directions. Know the owner well. That's why I shared it.
You also said the Missouri boys would never win their case
Orion, for the thousand times I've been right about stuff, I'll occasionally miss one. This one surprised me, but in the grand scheme it's pretty insignificant.
If this Bowsiter succeeds and gets a favorable ruling in CO, it will be another step forward.
In the grand scheme of life sure pretty insignificant. Not insignificant in the future of corner crossing in Wyoming.
Orion. So appeals and Supreme Court don't matter. They will do that for fun, not to win
Don't bother answering. You know the answer
RK apeals are going nowhere for Elk Mtn. All they are doing is being a pain in the butt. However, for every higher court apeal that they lose they make a stronger case for legalizing corner crossing.
Has anyone closer to all this hear about a news show like 20/20 doing research or following this case?? If so I think it coming out on a national level sure would help.
It's amazing to see a judge use common sense and make a ruling as such. I expected money and corruption to win but not today.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Deputy Director Dustin Temple issued the following statement:
“Corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana, and Montanans should continue to obtain permission from the adjoining landowners before crossing corners from one piece of public land to another,” Temple said. “Wardens will continue to report corner crossing cases to local county attorneys to exercise their prosecutorial discretion.”
That will hopefully change in time.
Jaquomo, he is getting a lot of heat for that misguided comment. LOL. You sure are passionate about keeping all this public land un touchable to us middle class hunters.
"Billings attorney Jake Schwallier disagreed with Temple's characterization." "Saying it is unlawful is an incorrect statement," said the Eastern Montana conservation leader for the Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. "From where we sit, this appears to be a formal shift in agency policy from FWP without following the appropriate process, and without any law or court ruling in Montana that explicitly says corner crossing is illegal," Schwallier added in a BHA statement. "Implying that it is illegal would be misleading at best. While it is certainly tricky and open to prosecutors' and ultimately a judge's discretion, this recent declaration from FWP is irresponsible of them and makes us question who the department is here to serve."
He's not the only one speaking out about that knee jerk reaction comment from FWP.
There is neither code nor case law that makes corner crossing in Montana illegal or legal. So how can they say its illegal?
Their just throwing a Hail Mary to try and prolong the inevitable at this point, which is people following suit with what those fine fellows did in Wyoming.
Very sad to see how corrupt it is here, with politicians favoring private land Millionaires/Billionaires and Outfitters, while hanging the common hunter out to dry.
"You sure are passionate about keeping all this public land un touchable to us middle class hunters".
No, as I've stated on here dozens of times, I would LOVE for corner crossing to be legal. but I also deal in facts. You guys who have your pants unzipped over the carbon County case need to get a grip on reality. Of course, an attorney for Biden Hikers and Activists is going to disagree, because they funded the Carbon County case and want it to be settled law, but it isn't. Let's see how this plays out in the 10th Circuit and possibly USSC before you shoot your wad. If it is upheld as being legal on a nationwide basis, awesome. I'm hopping a corner and setting cams tomorrow. Until then, zip your pants back up.
RK please tell me how they didn't win. No fine, no loss of hunting privileges, they brought corner crossing into a hug spotlight. Case has been dropped. Tell me again how they didn't win???
Not so sure there will be any appeals. Lots of LOs in other states will not want that ruling appealed and taken to a higher court that could affect their land . Many will want this kept in Wyoming.
The only person shooting their was has been you all over this thread from start to finish, you should take you own advice there pal.
I've encountered the arrogant ranchers in Colorado that think they own all the BLM and take down access signs in an attempt to keep the public from hunting near their properties.
The best hunters could have hoped for is an appeal by the landowners. By not doing so, there is no way to set further precedence by a ussc ruling, if it made it that far. And, that ruling was in favor of corner crossing.
Without it, it’s an example of an outrageous lawsuit fueled by an even more outrageous claims of damage.
This was just a start hopefully. But, more than likely it’ll serve as an even bigger deterrent against corner crossing in a hunters mind. Who has the time and resources to see it through? No one. So, the landowners played the long game by withdrawing before more potential damage was an actually done to private landowners sharing corners with land utilized by the public. While also taking the opportunity to plant a seed in everyone’s mind who is contemplating corner crossing.
This was no win for hunters. Only affirmation that by doing so causes great personal inconvenience and possibly more money then they’ll make in three lifetimes.
Are you guys misunderstanding the withdrawal? It is only in regard to the 1 waypoint that the judge said could only result in a nominal fine (about $100). The landowners have made no decision yet on the appeal for the rest of the case. They have already lost the rest of the case and their only choice is to appeal or go home and sulk.
It is true that if someone corner hops "their corner" again the landowner could ask that charges be filed again but I doubt the county will waste their money on charges (prosecutors don't like to lose). So it would be up to the landowners to file another lawsuit. That would cost the landowners and hunters a bunch of money again and the results would almost certainly be identical and the LO would be at risk now for penalties for filing a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not so sure the LO would be so eager to go through this all again since the result will certainly be the same. And will any other LOs with similar corners try a lawsuit if they are in the jurisdiction of the court where this case was filed? I think their lawyers would tell them they are crazy and ask for full payment up front.
It will certainly be interesting to see this chess match play out over the next decade.
They can’t prove that waypoint was ever taken where it was. To stand on that only weakens the landowners case. This isn’t something the attorneys just figured out.
This isn’t a chess match leading upto a lawsuit. It’s a drain game.
"So, the landowners played the long game by withdrawing before more potential damage was an actually done to private landowners sharing corners with land utilized by the public. While also taking the opportunity to plant a seed in everyone’s mind who is contemplating corner crossing."
This makes no sense. The landowner did not play a long game. This wasn't a strategy to plant a seed and deter future corner crossing. If they wanted to avoid future corner crossing and keep this out of the public view, they would/should have never filed the suit. The landowner and his attorney did not think this through, which was obvious by the damages they claimed occurred. The ridiculous claim was actually one of the things that put this in the public view.
This was simply some dick that thought because of his money, he had more rights than others. This sorta thing plays out every day.
They lost and this now has notoriety that it never had before. We will see where it goes.
Ok. I’m wrong. You boys gotta it all figured out. Take your happy rearend out there and hop that corner.
On a serious note, I hope I am wrong. I really do. But, my pockets aren’t deep enough to find out. Are yours? If you think this is over go give it a whirl. I’m rooting for you Ron.
If every hunter would hop a corner, perhaps they could overwhelm the local court systems.
WV, you're acting strange. first, i did not say it was over. as a matter of fact, i clearly said we will see where this goes.
my point is/was you can't claim (and expect to win) millions of dollars of damages because someone stepped over the corner of your property, whether it was trespassing and punishable with a fine or not.
EVERY hunter should be grateful for what these hunters stood up for, including their supporters such as BHA. i was rooting for them.
as i mentioned, this has more notoriety than ever before and has a chance to gain momentum that is favorable to hunters.
Im not acting strange. I think my point is very clear. I totally agree on the assortment of ridiculous claims. I said as much early on and yesterday. I agree with you.
I also have zero sympathy for landowners if their private property losses value due to corner crossing. They bought it on that assumption yet don’t like it when their hand isn’t favorable. Screw that. You can’t have it Both ways. You either live with the increase while you gotta and when you don’t Or, you don’t pay premium based on it then whine if the table turns.
Once again I agree with everything you’ve said. I’m only pointing out that the ball isn’t in our court. It’s in theirs. And, civil suits are a game of attrition when one side has money and the other doesn’t.
You’ve stated your disdain for this whole situation based on a rich guy versus the common folk. Surely you understand that one side is playing chess. Why? Because they have the money to do so. The other side is simply glad they won’t be held liable to the tune of the ridiculous damages the landowner is suing for.
I’m all for corner crossing being legal. I’ll even donate to the cause if someone is willing to put themselves in the position to take this by the horns and corner cross. I’ll donate to their legal funds gladly. That’s how irritated I am with the whole situation. But, I’m not dumb enough to believe that money isn’t going to be a huge part of this On the legislative side. It’s how things are done. In this justice system, you can buy a verdict. Every single time.
I’ve been where the hunters were in a civil lawsuit. And, I pray I’ll never have to go through that again. I’m betting they are too.
Just an FYI, there are many non rich guys who own property corners.
WV sounds like you have a better understanding of what's happening then most. But I have to disagree about this not being a win this will have ramifications that go past just a court ruling. It would be much better if it was run up the chain of appeals and made it through but the landowner or at least his lawyers understand that plus pressure from other landowners they won't appeal. I could understand how a well informed person could draw the same conclusions as you of it being a huge money suck that most of us can't afford and would avoid. Also let's be real BHA can't pay everyone's court cost if there's suddenly 100's of cases a year. But I think most people aren't paying as much attention to it as you they heard about a win and now suddenly at least in their mind corner crossing is now legal. I believe there will be a huge uptick in cases this year hopefully so many the sheriff's are overwhelmed. I also agree most can't afford such lengthy court battles but criminal trespass in Wyoming is a misdemeanor punishable by no more then a $750 fine which is cheaper then a elk tag. Civil disobedience has been used for a very long time to protest unjust laws why not here? Just like weed enough people are for it they finally just give up fighting the tide. When my dad was a boy there were segregated lunch counters and drinking fountains! Don't get me wrong not trying to claim corner crossing is as important as civil rights just pointing out that there's a long history in our country of using civil disobedience to protest unjust laws.
Hopefully the non hunting voter will understand civil disobedience and trespass issues by hunters in an effort to kill an animal. Those headlines may be interesting.
Missouribreaks - I think the non-hunters will believe what the media sells them. If they cast hunters in a bad light then they'll think hunters are in the wrong. If they cast landowners as in the wrong then that's what they'll believe. I'm pretty sure we can count on most media to be against hunters pushing the issue.
I don’t claim to know more than anyone. And, I’m betting that I know less about this case than 99% of the people that are aware of it. However, I do understand how civil suits work. It isn’t about who’s right or even reality. It’s about who has the money. In this case, it’s the landowner suing the hunters. And, that’s where favor will fall when the going gets tough.
With all that, I too see the individual victory here. But, corner crossing isn’t going to be settled in favor of the hunter until someone takes it to the USSC. And wins. Until then, there is going to be cases like this. And, while I’m tickled the hunters were protected from the civil damages the landowner was seeking, it didn’t further the hunters cause.
I like the visual this ruling presents. But, nothing has changed at this point. And, until jimmy john or some other very wealthy hunter decides to buck the norm and stand in for every hunter in this country by corner crossing in order to start another case, we are no closer to a favorable outcome then we were before these guys did it.
That’s my opinion. Because public favor isn’t going to sway over the interest of money. That’s the system we live in.
"Because public favor isn’t going to sway over the interest of money. That’s the system we live in."
You're not wrong about that one bit!
Hunters aren't going to get any sympathy in the mainstream media or the court of public opinion. The pot legalization analogy is a red herring. Voters approve pot because a majority of voters have either used pot or know people who do, know pot is everywhere, and pot taxes generate money for schools, etc.. Nobody hunts, and corner crossing benefits nobody. (OK, less than 4%, which is basically within the margin of error, statistically).
That's why this either needs to be decided by a higher court, or it will continue to be a county-by-county and case-by-case issue, ad infinitum, as the MT Deputy Director stated.
This fall should be interesting, and possibly very expensive, for some hunters who think this is somehow settled law now.
Pot is definitely more of a widespread issue but there's similarities. It's still federally illegal but at this point the government has allowed the state's to make their own rulings on it with little interference. While I'm not as pessimistic as you Jaq on gaining public favor, especially in a state like Wyoming where so many are active outdoorsmen/women or at least know someone who is, it's certainly no easy victory either. Colorado I'm far less hopeful for more concerned if there will be hunting there then if I can corner cross. But I also recognize what WV pointed out in this day and age money wins out and big landowners usually have deep pockets.
I had higher hopes for WY too, but with the recent failures in the legislature to either legalize it or codify it as illegal, I'm not very optimistic unless it gets on the ballot.
CO, on the other hand, has so few hunters as a percentage of the population, that I don't see it making the ballot. We only raised $300K to fight the wolf initiative, and that included landowner and stock grower associations contributing. Now that the legislative effort has died, it looks pretty bleak down here.
I agree, this fall will be interesting. I believe this will gtow legs, although some may feel 10ft. tall and bullet proof doing it and may suffer consequences I still believe we will see morr steps toward making corner crossing legal.
"I'm pretty sure we can count on most media to be against hunters pushing the issue."
I'm pretty sure you are misreading the room.
The media, and the public loves to see David beat Goliath, even when David is a hunter. The public understands that David winning means that they too personally gain access to this land, which is important even if they will never go there.
"The public understands that David winning means that they too personally gain access to this land, which is important even if they will never go there."
I'm not so sure about that. NO hikers or general recreationalists were interested enough in the issue to bother to comment in the recent CO legislative effort that failed. Only ONE hunter testified.
I'm on some FB groups of general recreationalists in CO, and there was never any mention of this, even while the CO legislative hearings were going on. In fact, corner crossing as an issue is crickets everywhere except hunting forums. Nobody cares except a few hunters.
We also disagreed on how this case would go. :)
That was a prediction. I'm stating fact in this instance. The CO bill to legalize corner hopping died an ignominious death last month because nobody cared except the one guy who got his friend, a naive new legislator, to offer a bill. He was the only hunter to testify in favor of it.
Lou
Please stop using big words. It makes my head hurt.
This court ruling is for this district. How many hunters are going to test the waters outside of this district snd think they are safe? My guess is a lot. The judge was pretty clear on how these hunters crossed was legal. I don’t see the judge having the same ruling if someone missed the corner by inches. According to this ruling this judge wouldn’t have awarded even close to the amount the landowner was wanting even if the guys trespassed.
I actually doubt if there will be more than a few cases of corner crossing this fall and we'll probably not hear about any of them unless someone has pre-arranged some deep pockets to financially support their case.
There will be no charges in some cases and in others the people charged will quickly figure out it is cheaper to pay the citation. A lot will depend on where it happens, how it happens and who is involved on both sides.
The only cases we'll hear about is if someone is out to make another test case, financially ready, and the landowner bites the hook.
Would it be unreasonable to go and ask the landowners for permission to cross at those corners?
If the area is that good to hunt in, it might be worth a keg of beer for the ranch crew, or offering to spend a day or two mending fence while scouting before the season opens. If they hang out at a local pub, then buy a few rounds.
I've always found that knocking on a door and just talking with people brings a much more harmonious outcome.
MikeB, while all of those are kind gestures. That puts us right back where we started. We shouldn't have to ask permission to access public ground in this manner.
Mike B what about the guy that absolutely won't allow any regardless of how nice you ask because he's selling hunts, trespass fees, or leasing access to a outfitter? The guy at elk mountain wanted 7 million in damages. That's what he thinks keeping sole access to that private is worth.
ahawkeye: I agree. Seems there is a new level of greed in America that never used to exist...my brain just doesn't work that way.
PushCo: Yeah...there's always some peckerhead like that. I think a lot of this land is owned by corporations today, and they're going to squeeze every centavo they can out of every sq. ft.
I've got a neighbor that has a set of concrete steps down to the river, which is about a 10' drop off a cut bank otherwise. If someone knocks on his door and asks to cross his well manicured back lawn to access those stairs, he lets them. Once you hit the beach, it's just fifty yards to one of the best salmon holes on the river, which is in my backyard. So long as they stay on the riverbank, they're not trespassing. Don't mind the people being there so long as they clean up after themselves. Leave a mess and they don't get access again.
I'd bet people would happily pay $5 a head to fish there, because they know their going to limit on Coho, Pinks or Chum salmon. He wouldn't consider that, and neither would I.
MikeB, I wish everyone had a neighbor like your's. I feel you on this I just wish people wouldn't keep others out of public land. I'm 100% behind a land owner who wants to keep his or her land, tip toeing across a corner seems pretty harmless to me. Good on you and your neighbor Sir.
Snipped this from local news. (Disclaimer. He was not arrested for corner crossing! ) I am sorry but this is funny!
