Bowsite.com

(I know, I know... It's not my kettle, libtard and all that fun stuff... It's just hard for me to grasp coming from a region which is generally extremely liberal regarding public access to land for hunting and fishing, in a really good way. (Not posted = legal here))

smurph, i know crossing a corner from public to public is legal. until the less intelligent in law enforcement and government catch up with me and others who know this, i won't post on a public forum whether i crossed a corner. it just makes good sense to not embarrass these folks. they do fine on their own and don't need help.

the second reason is i don't want to give away where i could hunt and consistently kill 350"+ bulls and 200"+ bucks. i would have the place to myself. i am happily married and do not need more attention from the ladies than i already get. i am sure you understand.

:)

Matt

I also sympathize with property owners who paid a premium for their land, (many are small parcels) based upon current law, who will have their property significantly devalued. Legal challenges will reference the two previous rulings, along with the Takings Clause.

Those who say, "Too bad for them, laws change" would change their tune if a law was suddenly changed that allowed everyone in their community to cross their property at any time to reach something on the other side.

Complicating this is that the ONLY people concerned about corner crossing are a few hunters...No other outdoor recreation group even has this issue on the radar screen, because there is nothing on the other side of these corners except stuff to hunt. Sometimes.

So landing a chopper or taxi drone to gain access would be ok?

So long as you come in from commercial altitude, and can prove that you did so.

I think that depends on State and FAA requirements in the area. There is privately landlocked public ground where it's perfectly legal to land a chopper, and hunters do exactly that. Years ago, I looked into it for Colorado, and determined it wasn't feasible from both a cost and legal perspective.

Matt

1. It can only be done on BLM, not USFS land.

2. If the BLM is enrolled in a RFW program, you have to get a tag from the RFW operator, in which case there's no point to chopper in.

3. The helicopter pilot has to be licensed to land on BLM. Not many are.

4. You have to land on an existing 2-track or road.

I made a few calls to helicopter transporters and either they weren't licensed to land on BLM, and/or they weren't interested in transporting hunters. There's was also logistical problems with the operators not having a flexible pickup schedule in case we tagged out early. It was also pretty expensive. We decided it wasn't worth pursuing any further.

Matt

If I was ever to meet one of those "landowners", I'm afraid my first question would be...

"Rumor has it that you won't allow someone to cross 1sq.ft. of your airspace. Has anyone called you an A-hole yet today? If not, I'd like to be the first."

And not to mention, you think they care about being called an asshole?

Pretty sure Fred Esc. at Elk Mt Ranch has been called worse.

D. All takeoffs and landings of aircraft shall be made only at the Municipal Airport or at other airports owned by the City, the State of Colorado or the United States government, or at duly licensed aviation fields or helicopter landing areas.

It's a figure of speech...rather than a more pleasant discussion, I'd ask the A-hole question right off the bat. Understand now?

"Additionally, What’s stopping you from finding said land owner and showing all of us your bravery and how brawny you really are."

First of all, I've got no idea who the landowner (or corporation) is. Secondly, I don't need to show you or anyone else Jackdiddly. FYI, neither Bravery nor brawnyness are listed in the requirements for identifying an asshole.

"And not to mention, you think they care about being called an asshole? "

Probably no more than I care about somebody quizzing me about an easily understood comment. In truth, the odds of me ever meeting one of those landowners is about nil.

DConcrete, in all honesty I just brought my wife home from the hospital after they did a biopsy on the massive tumor in her lung and lymph nodes. I'm really not in the mood for a pissing match. Perhaps some other time.

Normal people who had the foresight to buy land next to a chunk of BLM or National Forest. Not all of them are assholes.

Sorry to hear about your wife, Mike B. Best wishes for her treatment and recovery.

i do have a little experience with this. owning land that borders public land isnt always all its cracked up to be. on one hand in makes your parcel seem a lot bigger because you have use of the public land...on the other hand it can make your parcel seem much smaller because so does everyone else....but you know that going in. attempting to effectively take ownership of the public land is pretty sketchy in my opinion.

Matt

i get what your saying but isnt that kind of an oxymoron? every taxpayer pays for public land...yet they have no access? around here...people have been caught posting public land...doesnt seem much different to me.

think about it this way. if its trespassing on someones private airspace jumping a corner from public to public...how is that different than using the publics air space going from private to private? dont we all own the public air space?

i can see both sides...

How does one stepping from piece to the other negate the use of enjoyment of the property? This is a huge point in the current case and so far the land owners has not been gaining much ground.

How does the stepping one corner to another prevent the use or enjoyment of that property?

Matt

ranchers, or friends of ranchers on the committee

This bill really seemed to fly under the radar. I hadn't heard anything about it until I did some Google searching this morning.

Matt

After the defeat she admitted she was "naive" and should have researched the issue further, to understand the level of opposition vs. support.

Like I said before, nobody cares except a few hunters. These proposed laws have failed in MT, WY, and CO. It will take a SCOTUS ruling to settle it.

Do you happen to know why the bill went to a Senate Committee instead of being voted on by the whole Senate? I don't know how that works, but it seems likely it would have passed with a full vote based on the House vote.

Matt

Maybe Pronghorn21 will come on and update us. This was "his" bill.

I don't think that is the issue. Once one person steps OVER the corner, the next steps on the corner, then they decide they need a horse to get their elk out, then the "trail" gets muddy, so they widen it out a bit.... In other words it's impossible to manage once started without creating an actual trail. A "taking" without a valid public necessity.

it depends on how you look at it i guess. it could also be seen as private landowners wanting to control land they dont own.

The term "public land" does not imply ownership. Not it any real way that actual ownership is defined. Those lands are held in trust for public benefit by the administering agency. All of those "public lands" were stolen, traded, or otherwise claimed by the federal government. Many of them were subsequently sold, traded, put into private hands, or "locked up" by various schemes that, at the time and without a sunset clause, were deemed for the benefit of the public. Two of those policies that greatly affected "public lands", especially out west, were the 'checkerboard' policy to incentivize quality railroad building, and the Homestead Act. Those lands, and adjacent lands, have since changed hands many times over the ensuing years at values at least partly determined by those policies. Maybe you also want to "reclaim" access to original homesteads? You don't own 'public land' any more than I own an interest in any US aircraft carrier that allows me to book a cruise. Actually much less, since you were never taxed for the initial 'purchase'.

But would you really want an actual partial ownership. "Your" property would still have to be managed. And since it would also be owned by every citizen, it would have to managed by everyone equally. Seems like an ideal way would be by popular vote. The ballot question could read; BLM land should be open to hunting, yes or no. Or maybe just administered by % of the public who wants to use it for their own interests. Hunters get about 10% of BLM to hunt. Or maybe they get to use it for all hunting 10% of the year.

This entire issue is really about no measurable gain. If you gain a public access, so does every other hunter. Eventually, sooner than later, any initial advantage in quality or quantity of game will be gone. It will just be like every other BLM parcel, and actually worse, because it will be in 1 square mile sections interspersed by hostile private property owners.

I hate the trespass fees and I wish corner crossing were legal.

GG I understand what the law says however I believe things are changing we all know things are changing. I know this Ruffles feathers but it's the truth look at where we are now with this compared to just 5 years ago things are changing and yes it will piss off those rich landowners that paid that premium price but whose fault is that no one told them they had to buy that ground.

i was under the impression that public lands were collectively owned by the us citizens and managed by government agencies.

either way...couldnt the argument still be made that whatever the citizens ownership is...and however the land came to be public...everyone has...or should have...equal access to it.

" This entire issue is really about no measurable gain. If you gain a public access, so does every other hunter."

isnt that what "public" means? first of all...isnt public land about more than more and better animals for people to kill? if thats what youre looking for...and what you perceive to be "measurable gain"... that comes at the cost of private ownership.

what about if the people that are wanting to cross corners have no interest in hunting but only hiking...camping....birding...photography and berry picking?

Matt

That's part of the problem with forcing access. None of them are wanting to corner cross because they already have millions upon millions of acres of government land open to do those things, hassle free, easily accessible, just like we hunters have millions and millions of acres to hunt. I peruse the nonhunting recreational forums and websites, and this issue is never, ever mentioned. None of them speak out, none of their organizations do either. They....don't....care. None showed up to speak at the hearings, where only two hunters, plus a couple reps from BHA bothered to attend.

Ahawkeye, what percentage of those 27,000 corners are adjacent to "rich landowners" you seem to hate (envy?) vs. hard-working families? Give us the number, and define "rich". We'll wait....

Matt

are the adjacent private landowners using it and if so...what for? it would seem that if they werent hunting on it, they wouldnt care that someone else was.

Actually they can until current law is changed. And they paid, and continue to pay thru property taxes, for that right. You could too, if you wanted to.

Matt

If you say “well that’s crazy, landowners can’t be locked out of land they own” then perfect - we are in agreement! If the (private) landowners should have a right to access the property that they own, then the (public) landowners should have a right to access the property that they own.

The whole “property devaluation” argument is wild to me. A million things can devalue a property, this doesn’t mean that a landowner has a legal right to prevent the devaluation from happening. They knew what they purchased and had legal ownership over when they purchased it, and their deed does not include “exclusive public land access”.

Matt.

"...and their deed does not include “exclusive public land access”." On the other hand, you have no deed to the "public land". And long-standing custom and usage favors the bordering private land owner. While there are many things that can devalue land, government action shouldn't be one of them without showing greater public necessity.

Adding to Ziek's excellent post, those same landowners adjacent to NF or BLM corners have to fence their property if they don't have the grazing lease for that landlocked parcel, because Colorado is a fence-out state. If the Supreme Court somehow changes the corner crossing law and it survives the hundreds of lawsuits and challenges based upon the 14th Amendment, expect to see thousands of fences raised to 10-12 feet high at those corners.

Land owners bought and pay taxes on land that has a value. Exclusive or near exclusive rights to access quality public land figures into the price they paid and their land's valuation. Taking that without compensation seems unreasonable.

Anyone who doesn't see both sides seems unreasonable.

The "notion" of corner crossing devaluing someone's land is not "dying". It is easy to prove. If a 35 acre parcel with a modest home is valued at, say, 900,000 by realtors because it has National Forest access, and the rules change so that every hunter from Iowa can trudge past 25 feet from the family home to access it, the land is devalued significantly. Every realtor will testify to that in court.

Esch overreached and screwed up in several ways, and he had bad legal representation. Those are the facts, no matter how I see it (and as I stated in my original post, I see both sides). My ADA told me that a Carbon County judge ruling has no bearing on anything outside Carbon County. Why don't you test it in Colorado, if you're so sure it's changing. I'll happily give you an awesome corner I offered to another Bowsiter. Or are you all talk?

I'm also still waiting for you to tell us how many of the 27,000 corners are owned by "rich" ranchers, and what constitutes someone being "rich".

seems reasonable. :)

Back to the matter at hand, fine, only one judge, one game warden, and one sheriffs department that didn't write any tickets. BHA, TRCP, Onx and others are working on that change, this has received more attention than it has in the past, at least one visible case has been in favor of land access. 6 years ago I don't think this issue had the steam it has now.

Lastly, I will look up how many of the 27,000 corners are "rich" ranchers when you tell me how many are "hard working families". But what's that got to do with anything? The fact is that ground is being exclusively used by those people and it is owned by the US Government. I'm not saying that everyone of those people are butt holes but what I am saying is every sq inch of that ground is as much mine to use as theirs. They are leaving people out and that needs to change. I agree, one foot on one parcel and another foot over the corner seems reasonable, horses would be a different story in my opinion, you can't ensure the horse doesn't step on private, and the only way a trail should be built is if an easement is agreed upon (not likely in most cases) between USFS or BLM or whatever department and the land owner. But not letting a guy corner hop is being greedy there's no other explanation that I can see. I'm not going to build a house next to an old coal mine and expect it doesn't get re-mined or some other undesirable process or whatever, so why would I expect something not to change on US Government ground adjacent to my ground?

And they had the desire and means to pursue a property that had exclusive access to NF. Just like you, me, Jaq, or anyone.

There was a property I came across while searching for cabins/land in SC Pennsylvania. As soon as I saw the pics I knew the property and location. It was a nice cabin on 15 acres that had exclusive access to a nice chunk of state forest. Unfortunately it was under agreement or would have snatched it up. Properties down the road a mile, long string of hunting cabins without access to SF were going for about 30% less.

Two things:

1. Define rich.

2. Define greedy.

Please note your opinion does NOT qualify as a definition.

You remind me of the Karens in HOA's that want to tell property owners what they can and can't do with their property.

The problem is Colorado has never defined exactly what constitutes a navigable river or stream, like other western states have. So trespassing disputes still happen frequently and they are arbitrated on a case by case bases. You still could be prosecuted for trespassing, if you decided to float a small stream on an inner-tube thru private property. You also need public access to a navigable river to float it. Many sections of rivers in Colorado don't have that.

The Colorado legislature really needs to establish a clear definition of navigable waters, then create public access to all of them.

Matt

Everybody just wants what they can’t have. I have 2 beautiful acres in Pennsylvania that is worthless for hunting or much of anything. But it’s my place of peace and I would not want anyone having the right to travel on it for any reason. However if someone asked to cross I’d say sure. If I had trophy mulies or elk in the other side the answer would be no. Why? Because I made owning a piece of land a priority at some point. I’m still paying for it. What is your priority? Owning a Corvette? Cool can I take a spin?

The missing thing in lots of these posts is respect. I have to say not being able to access public land pisses me off. But it is what it is. It stems from old laws made before anyone cared about hunting rights. So I just grit my teeth and chalk it up as one of those things I have to ask God for the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. Just like goats, sheep, and griz on public land in Alaska. I would love to rent a boat in Whittier and head out into the sound for a DIY mountain goat/black bear hunt with some fishing. But I realize if I were able to do that so would a million other guys so…..

not sure thats a good analogy. first of all...you actually own the corvette. not so with public land that shares a corner with your private land.

would you have a problem your corvette was parked at a restaurant and i waved my hand over it? :)

Another issue is, there is no device accurate enough to pinpoint the actual corner. So once in the vicinity you would have to search for a survey pin which might or might not be there, or visible. In the process, there would be no way to ensure you don't walk on the private property. And it's likely that, like most of the survey pins around my property, there is more that one pin placed at different dates and superseded by more accurate methods over time. Maybe you would be willing to pay for a new survey to confirm the accuracy that isn't an issue without a couple of people claiming a right to "their" land?

in your example...those are two pieces of private property....not to mention it would be building a permanent structure...that will actually alter the use of someone elses private property.

when a person crosses a public border corner...does the portion of his body that enters the airspace of the private parcel alter the private landowners use of his private parcel?

Fortunately our Congress woman stepped in and actually got a bill passed that deeded the property back to the owners. But they had to spend a lot of money fighting the government before that occurred.

Wondering how re-surveying 27,000 corners would go, if somehow corner crossing becomes legalized. Who will pay for it? BHA? Or would a new Corner Crossing Commission just pick the corners leading to whatever sections OnX or Huntin' Whore determines to have the best hunting opportunity for different species, based on the inevitable rankings that will be produced and sold. "Ranking the corners, by species and trophy quality".

Here's another example that relates specifically to the topic. Let's say you owned property and a home in Lou's checkerboard neighborhood of 35 acre lots. Perhaps you moved there to get away from people and enjoy the serenity of rural living, many do. Due to terrain, or other site related factors, your house was built at the minimum setback from one of these corners. I believe those setbacks can be as close as 10 feet from the property line. Suddenly, there is a constant stream of hunters trudging back and forth 10 feet from your house at all times of the day or night. Would that alter your use and enjoyment of your property? It certainly would for me.

Matt

But what are your thoughts on walking down a sidewalk that goes through someone’s yard. Are you trespassing if your arm crosses into the air space of the landowners grass?

On a side note. I have seen city ordinances where you are obligated to remove snow on a sidewalk that cuts across a private piece of property so the public can walk through.

it probably would for me too. but how would that be any different than any neighbor or their kids/friends playing soccer10 feet from your house when you want your peace and quiet? should the fact that someone chose to buy and build at the minimum setback from a public parcel make their quit sanctuary permanent?

i actually have some experience when it comes to this. my house sits on land that borders a groomed snowmobile trail. it wasnt a snowmobile trail when i bought it...it was just a seasonal forest service road. when i bought the property...it wasnt even legal to ride atvs on forest service roads. now it is part of a large network of groomed snowmobile orv and atv trails that are used all hours of the day...all seasons of the year. when the sound of hopped-up snowmobiles enter my air space at 2 in the morning...i cant say im overly excited...but it is what it is...

times change...laws change...land use changes.

Typically public sidewalks are within a public easement. If strangers were actually walking on my private sidewalk, other than maybe the mail man or delivery personnel, then I would definitely have a problem with it.

"Are you trespassing if your arm crosses into the air space of the landowners grass?"

As I understand it, technically yes, you are trespassing, but it would be difficult to prove any damages occurred, so it's not likely to be prosecuted. On the other hand, if your neighbor's tree grows over your property line, in most states it's legal to trim the branches, or roots, back to the property line, as long you don't harm the tree.

Matt

If a landowner does know but it remains improperly marked/mapped I could see that opening a can of worms.

wouldnt that be apples and oranges? youre talking about your private sidewalk vs public land. by virtue of the fact that the land is public...the entire parcel is a public easement.

the only thing in question is the air space...so a public sidewalk bordering private land is an apt analogy.

IMO, the difference is, you don't live in a crowded urban neighborhood with the realistic expectation of total peace and quiet. That's exactly why many people live in neighborhoods like Lou's. And they pay a premium, both in purchase price and property taxes, because current laws affords them to have that expectation. Obviously no law is permanent, but I suspect those people would fight tooth and nail to keep them that way. I also suspect legal liabilities are the primary reason why bills to make corner crossing legal have failed in 3 western states.

Matt

no i live in the country...where peace and quiet actually is a realistic expectation. im assuming the same is true for lou. who would buy a lot in a crowded urban neighborhood and expect peace and quiet?

your statement makes no sense.

Matt

Matt

I guess I don’t see the point of hunters surveying every single corner if none of the other parties are of the opinion that they’re currently wrong, which would certainly be the case for a portion of that 27,000.

In the SCOTUS ruling on Leo, where they overruled the Appeals court, they stated, "When the Secretary of the Interior has discussed access rights, his discussion has been colored by the assumption that those rights had to be purchased.[25] This Court has traditionally recognized the special need for certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned, and we are unwilling to upset settled expectations to accommodate some ill-defined power to construct public thoroughfares without compensation." Note the phrase, "certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned".

But those were different courts. This one has shown that they are willing to overrule precedent (Roe) and could very well rule that Causby violates the spirit of Unlawful Inclosures.

Prior to that, in 1885, the Unlawful "Inclosures" Act (sic) was passed. That was intended primarily to deal with fencing, which was just starting to become an issue in the West. Corner crossing was never even a consideration back then. Causby essentially negated Unlawful Inclosures from the corner crossing perspective, making it impossible to access at the corners without violating airspace ownership. So they need to clarify these contradictions.

Skalvahl's personal belief apparently was that Causby did not negate Unlawful Inclosures, and that crossing airspace was not trespassing. That was only his personal opinion. Nothing more.

This court may very well push it back to the states, and we'll be right back where we are now, meaning, TBD on a case by case basis, depending upon jurisdiction, unless Congress deals with it, which they aren't inclined to do.

To my example earlier, everyone agreed that the USGS corner pins were accurate when my neighbors bought parcels adjacent to National Forest. Then the government discovered they were way off, and decided to punish the landowners, who did everything in good faith. With 27,000 corners in play, and many corner pins buried deep under dirt, pine needles, etc, nobody really knows unless a survey is done. OnX won't do anyone any good.

In your example, it could have gone the other way for those landowners and they found that they actually owned farther onto the national forest. So they’d have been trespassed on for years, but by not knowing where their boundaries were what does it actually matter?

As Lou has said numerous times, this is only a hot button topic for a tiny fraction of the general public…hunters.

If I were a federal legislator, or SC judge, I wouldn’t want to touch this topic. I’d kick It back to States to decide, which so far has produced the status quo.

Matt

But if the law changes, those landowners who do care will make damn sure THEY know where their corner is, and it wouldn't be a surprise if they stuck cell cameras on the OnX "corners".

This issue is a loooong way from being settled on a large scale.

Sounds better than shipping it to Ukraine. :)

I have no doubts it’s far from settled.

There are many things that are a hot button topic for a tiny fraction of the population - wolf reintroduction, game laws, policing practices, gun magazine capacity, national debt, taxes, green energy, student loan forgiveness, housing density, affirmative action, where semiconductors and pharmaceuticals are manufactured, road maintenance, where casinos and shelters are built, etc.

You refer to it as a tiny fraction but on the other hand, the landowners stand to lose a tremendous amount of property value.   Every time there are land swaps or organizations like RMEF acquire land for hunting and fishing, hunters and fishermen use those areas.

If you took a poll of people who use the outdoors and ask the question if they are interested in gaining access to some of the public land that is currently not accessible, the vast majority of us would support it. It is many millions of people.

When it comes to corner crossing, the opponents try to convince us that only an itty bitty number of people are interested and would benefit.

hope you Coloradan's enjoy the wolves that are coming your way. unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of hunters care.

is it more the governments job to protect the value of private property or insure access to public property?

When Is Compensation Required?

"We come then to the basic question: When do owners have to be compensated as a result of government actions? In general, there are four scenarios to consider.

First, when government actions incidentally reduce property values, but no rights are violated because nothing that belongs free and clear to the owner is taken, no compensation is due. If the government closes a military base or a neighborhood school, for example, or builds a new highway distant from the old one with its commercial enterprises, property values may decline as a result — but nothing was taken. We own our property and all the legitimate uses that go with it, not the value in our property, which is a function of many ever??changing factors.

Second, when government acts, under its police power, to secure rights — when it stops someone from polluting, for example, or from excessively endangering others — the restricted owner is not entitled to compensation, whatever his financial losses, because the uses prohibited or “taken” were wrong to begin with. Since there is no right to pollute, no right was taken. Thus, we do not have to pay polluters not to pollute. Here again the question is not whether value was taken but whether a right was taken. Proper uses of the police power take no rights. They protect rights.

Third, when government acts not to secure rights but to provide the public with goods like wildlife habitat, scenic views, or historic preservation, and in so doing prohibits or “takes” some otherwise rightful use, then it is acting, in part, under the eminent domain power and does have to compensate the owner for any losses he may suffer. The principle here is quite simple: the public has to pay for the goods it wants, just like any private person would have to. Bad enough that the public can take what it wants by condemnation; at least it should pay for what it takes rather than ask the owner to bear the full cost of its appetite. It is here, of course, that modern regulatory takings abuses are most common, as governments at all levels try to provide the public with all manner of amenities, especially environmental amenities, “off budget.” As noted above, there is an old??fashioned word for that practice — “theft” — and no amount of rationalization about “good reasons” will change that. Even thieves, after all, have “good reasons” for what they do.

Finally, when government, through full condemnation, takes for public use not simply some or all of the owner’s uses but the entire estate, including the title, compensation is clearly due."

There's a great meateater podcast with the facts, from the Attorney for the good guys.

interesting perspective...thanks for posting.

Why are you so combative and afraid of the truth? Its impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you on just about anything, corner crossing included.

A good first step would be for you to take your own advice and get your facts straight.

For clarification, there were 2 judges involved in this case, the Carbon County judge who heard the criminal case. Was a jury trial and the hunters were found NOT GUILTY of criminal trespass.

The second court case involved civil trespass and was heard by a United States Circuit Court judge, Judge Skavdahl. That case absolutely set precedent regarding civil trespass in the Wyoming checkerboard regarding corner crossing. Corner crossing is legal in regard to civil trespass in the Wyoming Checkerboard. If you want to argue otherwise, I can give you Semerad's phone number. Also, you left out the meat of the ruling by Skavdahl, citing Leo and Causby, but not shockingly you leave out Mackay. Judge Skavdhal got it right, he ruled on the law, the various court cases, etc.

The case is now in the 10th circuit. The lawyers for Fred have made their case, we are responding to that case now, including filing amicus briefs, etc. to strengthen the case for corner crossing.

I suspect the 10th Circuit is going to uphold Skavdahl's ruling.

That meateater podcast with Semerad is worth a listen.

i thought so too. for those of us who arent close to this situation it was nice to hear about the legal side of things and the history that led up to much of what is going on now.

depending on how the courts decide...it will be interesting to see if the affected ranch owners end up going after the real estate agents that might have made promises that may or may not have been legit.

So maybe Skavdahl considered the MO hunters as simply sheep, looking for a good place to graze. We all know hunters are sheep to some extent.

Will be real interesting to see how the 10th considers Skavdahl's convoluted reasoning.

Maybe we can start sticking to facts.

Like Steve, one of the compelling parts to this whole CC issue to me is that this hasn't been settled clearly by now.

Isn't that the way our judicial system is supposed to work? Isn't a defendant presumed innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt? It's certainly the judges job to look for reasonable doubt. How can you fault/question/criticize a judge for looking hard for it????

Here's a perspective from the other side.

From the story:

Skavdahl’s ruling applies to a 40-mile-wide swath across southern Wyoming where federal railroad-construction land grants created an ownership checkerboard on either side of the Union Pacific line. As a result of Skavdahl’s ruling, corner crossing is now legal there.

And if a corner is crossed 50 feet outside that "40 mile swath" it's still illegal? Thanks for the good laugh this morning, Buzzy!

You clearly don't understand how our legal system works.

The judge in this case ruled on existing law, and pertinent case law. That's how it works. It's all in the summary judgement in the link, probably worth reading if you're confused on the law. Speaking of which, where did you acquire your law degree?

As far as hunting and corner crossing, I'm no Rosa Parks. My hunting time is too important to me to risk even 1% getting hassled/cited.

I figure that this is going to get fleshed out eventually because there's enough people who feel it's 'legal enough' for them or they are willing to die on that hill. Once you fine Americans have settled this, let me know, because for me, it's still 'illegal enough' to not do it.

Nobody's opinion matters except the 10th. If they rule that corner crossing is legal, overturning SCOTUS precedent, it will be legal EVERYWHERE, not just in an arbitrary 40 mile wide swath, at least until SCOTUS takes it up or bounces it back to the states.

Your hubris is getting you way out over your skis. Go chill and have another pint with your skinny-jeans, man-bun Biden Hiker buddies, until a real court rules on it.

I would love to hop corners around where I live in CO, which is also checkerboard from the original land grants. But we get arrested here. So this needs to apply universally, not to some thin strip of land.

Like I said, the reason it applied to the checkerboard is well explained in Ryan's documents as well as the summary judgement.

I can't make you comprehend it.

from your link...if the following is accurate...seems pretty cut and dried to me...not to mention pretty fair.

"On Point 1, the Court announced a broader holding than that the defendants in Iron Bar were not liable for trespass for corner crossing. It also held that the public "is entitled to" a reasonable way of passage to access public land, this reasonable way of passage is corner crossing that does not harm or make contact with private lands, and that private landowners "must suffer" the temporary incursions into airspace near their private lands when the public corner crosses lawfully."

I can't make you comprehend it."

From his (Ryan's) document:

"It seems a lot of people are uncertain or, at least, very cautious about the meaning of that court order. I wanted to articulate MY OPINION"

"I can't make you comprehend it. " Indeed.

Years ago I bought some land in Colorado next to a National Forest. The back of my property was in the middle of this NF and many miles into the forest. There isn’t a NF in that area that someone isn’t willing to walk further and further every year.

I assumed it would be great hunting. Funny thing, I wanted access to the NF. And everyone on the forest wanted on the private.

Mine wasn’t a large private ranch capable of holding pressured elk. But people look on a map and assume it’s not pressured. So here I am hunting into the NF and everyone else is sneaking on to my land.

How long would these corner jumping hot spots hold “Un pressured” animals if it magically becomes legal. The animals would just move to less pressured areas within the first week.

I sold that land to the next guy that thought it was land locked NF

when you sold your land and moved, did you move into a city or suburb where you have less land and there is more dense housing?

there is access to millions of acres at stake . granted, not all of them will be huntable and hold game.

"How long would these corner jumping hot spots hold “Un pressured” animals if it magically becomes legal. The animals would just move to less pressured areas within the first week."

that is exactly one of the favorable outcomes for the current problem in many areas, dispersing hunting pressure. it works that way with many current limited entry areas that offer a high quality hunt. it also works that way for those that choose to live in a rural area on acreage vs. in the city.

Matt

https://capcity.news/crime/court/2024/01/09/corner-crossing-hunters-cattle-king-era-is-over/

https://earthjustice.org/press/2024/groups-file-amicus-brief-to-defend-right-to-access-public-land-via-corner-crossing

I suspect those groups who enjoy exclusive use of our public lands will also file briefs on the Elk Mountain side; ie livestock and sheep growers groups.

i guess it would all depend on who you consider the "few"...and what part of guaranteeing access to public land would be bad for hunting as a whole.

couldnt the same be said for everyone else wanting to access public land? how many people would choose to access public land if they knew they wouldnt be hassled and charged with trespassing?

whether or not a person ultimately wins in court...its pretty expensive to fight and the vast majority of public land hunters will just not think its worth fighting.

As the Montana property owner groups accurately noted, this isn't just about a mythical, arbitrary 40 mile swath across Southern WY. It will affect thousands (more than 11,000) of landowners in multiple states, including Montana, which is outside the 10th's jurisdiction. This aspect will be a strong consideration for the 10th, and why it will eventually need to be decided either by SCOTUS or Congress.

" I already have more public acres available to me than I can possibly ever hope to hunt."

you do realize that your argument is akin to saying its ok to steal money from a billionaire because they already have enough money and they wont really miss it.

"Federal lands should be available for hunting to everyone, or no one."

arent you arguing against yourself now?

WY, MT, and CO State legislatures have all introduced bills that never made it anywhere. As I noted above, this affects 11,000 property owners, not just one company in Carbon County WY. So this pending ruling by the 10th will help move the needle one way or the other, but it won't be settled law until SCOTUS rules on it.

what personal property rights are being taken? is someone trying to gain access to the private property?

seems to me that the most fair thing would be to have an "X" number of feet easement at every corner.

how would you feel if a private landowner started trying to limit access to to the the more public acres available to you than you can possibly ever hope to hunt.

dont they have a legitimate complaint? someone is denying them (the public) access to their land...are they not?

youd be hard pressed to find anything like this in a city...village...or municipality. i doubt there are many...if any...lanclocked public parcels in such areas. virtually all of them have roads or other easements available for access.

Maybe so, and that should have been addressed in the 1800s when the government ceded these land grants. But SCOTUS already ruled that easements for "recreation" can't be forced across these corners after the fact. Government tried, and lost the case in the Leo ruling.

Somebody could make a lot of money surveying and recording the easement legal descriptions for 27,120 corners. Which would have to take place in order for an easement to be legal.

Matt

GG, what if that wasn't needed, and the end point was just: so long as no physical damage is occurring (fence being messed up for example) it's fine to walk across.

That seems reasonable.

it wouldnt need to be anything near that complicated. the corners are already known. all you would have to do is have a law that states from every corner in question, there is a three...four...five...six (whatever is decided on) perimeter around that corner to allow for access and egress to and from public parcels. lets face it, there is only one party that a simple agreement like that wouldnt work for...and it isnt the people seeking public access.

having said that...mere convenience and cost savings has never been...nor should it ever be a determinant of law.

Seems simple enough...except it's extremely complicated both Constitutionally (14th Amendment) and logistically. That's why no law has been passed, even at the State level. If such a law was passed at the Federal level, there would be over 11,000 plaintiffs joining the Class Action suit against the Federal Government.

And how do people find the corners without a survey? OnX? My property corner is off by 75 yards on OnX, and my house and garage are shown as being on public land. My garage at my other place is shown as being on my next door neighbor's property.

what would be their demand? exclusive access to public land?

"And how do people find the corners without a survey?"

i guess the same way the corners are found when a private land owner accuses someone of trespassing in their air space.

seems to me the precise corner wouldnt be that important. just a few foot easement to allow access and egress between public land parcels. to the public land hunter it wouldnt really be any more difficult than "show me where i can cross, and thats where i will cross...the exact corner isnt relevant to me."

Is a few inches of airspace violation a big deal? No, but of course the real impact is losing exclusive access. Access should have been figured in for corners, waterways, etc 150 years ago but it wasn't. Since then, access to land locked public has been part of the valuation of these private lands.

It is a loss for the land owner's if CC becomes codified as legal. I want to legally CC on foot but I see both sides of the issue.

" ...land locked public has been part of the valuation of these private lands."

a good friend bought a house on a golf course. thats what the value was based on. the golf course is a field now. his property is worth nowhere near what it used to be. all real estate involves risk.

SCOTUS said if Congress intended for an easement to exist across the corners it should have specified it in the Union Pacific Act. They also cited the "substantial impact such implication would would have on property rights granted over 100 years ago".

Since Congress isn’t willing to address this, and the states can't get a corner crossing law out of committee, this all boils down to whether the current SCOTUS is willing to reverse the Leo ruling, and establish that Congress did, in fact, "intend" to include an implied easement in the UP Act, but they just sort of forgot to include it in the law they wrote, deliberated, and passed.

Why would I pay money to build my own road or driveway? I’ll just use my neighbors existing road and come into the my back of my property from his and make the government force him to allow my access.

Very slippery slope that many Marxist politicians would love to help you with.

i didnt read the entire ruling but what i did read suggest that this ruling primarily refers to the building public roads. is that not the case?

You should read it all. It will help you better understand this issue. You should also know that this ruling came more than 100 years after the two cases Skavdahl primarily relied on (Mackay and UIA), and took those rulings into consideration at the the time. This clearly shows that Skavdahl was reaching to find reasons to support his own personal opinion about the validity of the case, not following legal precedent.

Does anyone have any idea when the 10th Circuit will take up this case?

Matt

If successful, the case will not create a right to easement at corners because it has nothing to do with easements. The defendants argument was that they never touched the private land, not that there was some kind of easement that they used.

If successful it will be difficult for many to duplicate because you will have to know the exact corner point and should you accidentally touch private land without permission you will still be guilty of trespassing because there will be no easement established.

I believe in US vs. Causby the USSC ruled it is trespassing.

"While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it, and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

Matt

"look at roe v wade"

Dobbs pushed abortion back to the states, where it belongs. SCOTUS may very well do this too, with CC. This is even more likely now that Montana has joined in the 10th case, stating that anything the 10th decides drastically affects landowners in that state, even though Montana isn't part of the 10th Circuit. So if the 10th does decide in favor of the corner-crossers, the ink won't even be dry before Montana jumps into the fray with the appeal to SCOTUS.

AG, you are partially right, but the bigger, and more troubling aspect is that he ruled that airspace exemption only applied to an arbitrary 40 mile wide swath across southern Wyoming. Right across the border, where I live, his ruling does not apply. One mile north of that 40 mile swath, the ruling doesnt apply. It isn’t even a statewide ruling. It's a bizarre scenario.

SCOTUS already ruled that airspace ownership is valid and enforceable. Skavdahl ignored all that and decided to base his decision on a flock of sheep from 100 years before Leo, before the Taylor Grazing Act rendered that decision moot. An analogy to his strange logic would be if a would-be rapist only sticks the tip in within that mysterious 40 mile wide swath, it isn't really rape. But if he steps 10 feet outside that swath, it is rape.

Of course it does! If you're not going to condemn an easement across private property, and leave the private landowner whole, all he has to do is place a tall enough pole at each of his corners close enough that no one could squeeze through, or ladder over with something portable. And he would only have to do that at the first corner. Or are you proposing restricting what he can do on HIS property also?

When this checkerboard was enacted, as with the Homestead Act at around the same time, Congress was only interested in Nation building. Grants for both were in perpetuity. They weren't interested in you having a few more acres to hunt. Why aren't you more concerned with the hundreds of millions of acres of "your" public land they gave away under the Homestead Act? Certainly at this point in time, several acres around the actual homes could be protected while allowing a "few" respectful hunters to access the rest of those lands that are just being farmed. It's not fair that they were just taken away from us. Oh wait! It's because "public land" doesn't mean what many of you want to think it does.

It's also curious that so many self-proclaimed conservatives are willing to throw individual private rights under the bus for what is a more liberal communal ownership point of view.

I would also recommend reading the LEO case, it absolutely does not apply since the case in question did involve an easement and a road. What the court said, was that the there was no "easement of necessity", didn't really dive into whether or not easement rights had been ceded under the UPA. The court wasn't clear: " whatever right of passage a private landowner might have, it is not at all clear that it would include the right to construct a road for public access to a recreational area"

One step further, the court found there was another route for the Government to take, eminent domain:

"More importantly, the easement is not actually a matter of necessity in this case, because the Government has the power of eminent domain."

Further: "It is possible that Congress gave the problem of access little thought; but it is at least as likely that the thought which was given focused on negotiation, reciprocity considerations, and the power of eminent domain as obvious devices for ameliorating disputes."

The problem is, other public land users, including hunters, hikers, bikers, cattle ranchers, etc. DO NOT have the ability to apply eminent domain. Thus, the reason for the UIA in the first place. The UAI has nothing to do with easements or building a road, it's about the ability for a public land user to access public lands.

Also, the UIA does apply to the current corner crossing case, without a doubt, the language is clear:

""No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands"

If Fred and his band of lawyers are going to argue on the LEO case, which is about easements and roads, and that their airspace was bruised, I believe they are going to be sorely disappointed in the 10th. From reading their arguments, that seems to be the case.

Skavdahl made the correct judgement a did base his decision on the law, case law, and past court cases.

If this was as clear cut as Lou wants everyone to believe, four hunters from Missouri would have been fined and found guilty of trespassing in Carbon County Wyoming. Further, a district court judge in Casper wouldn't have found in their favor either.

I think anyone with basic common sense realizes that the UIA does apply and that stepping momentarily through airspace without touching private property surely is not trespass.

What's most disturbing to me is that on a board of hunters, there is opposition to gaining access to public lands. I hope those cheering, and in some cases actively working against 330 million public land owners and public access, carry their beliefs and high moral code with them when corner crossing becomes legal, and never do it.

I find that rarely is the case. Those with such high moral values and alleged ethics are the first to take advantage of what they claim to hold so dear when it becomes useful to them to do so. Human nature I suppose.

I like where this is going and I like the odds for public land owners in the 10th.

Finally, no matter how this all shakes out, there absolutely needed to be clarification one way or another. Corner crossing has been a lingering issue for my entire life, its needs to be figured out.

No it doesn't have to do with an easement (see Mackay). Further, the UIA restricts what you're proposing...it's called the law, and the private landowner would be in violation of same.

Those are facts.

"and more troubling aspect is that he ruled that airspace exemption only applied to an arbitrary 40 mile wide swath across southern Wyoming. Right across the border, where I live, his ruling does not apply."

So crazy a WYOMING district judge's ruling doesn't apply to Colorado.

If you're sored about this case not applying to Colorado, feel free to go cross a corner and work your way through court.

Or better yet, jump on with the winning team and submit an amicus brief via your attorney to the case in the 10th.

It's how our legal system works, sorry it troubles you so.

For those interested here is the link to the LEO case, Mackay, and UIA: LEO https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/668/

Mackay: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/229/173/

UIA

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter25&edition=prelim

As far as joining the "winning team", I want nothing to do with a "team" that includes hard-core Leftist anti-hunting organizations. - you know, some of BHA's "partners".

I like my team, the 4 guys from Missouri that had the fortitude to do what most wouldn't, 2100 hunters that donated to the cause, and the legal team trying the case.

I'm sure you'll be one of the first to take advantage of corner crossing, you're welcome, in advance, if the ruling in the 10th is favorable.

Oh, and BHA is going this alone and have from the start. Nobody has control over anyone else filing an amicus brief in any case they want. Its up to the court to determine if they accept the amicus briefs that are submitted.

Once again, it's how our legal system works, funny you hold such contempt and fundamental ignorance for how it works.

Always has been, and from the get-go.

Id be cautious crossing a corner without a monument pin. And before the naysayers start yapping about burden of proof for the landowner to show where the actual corner is, the burden of proof also falls on the person crossing. I dont have time/money to spend in court defending my actions.

Im definitely going to wait for the ruling. I got lots of places to hunt in the meantime.

As SCOTUS said in the Leo ruling this is not about corner crossing per se, but about "substantial impact such implication would would have on property rights granted over 100 years ago".

Skavdahl may have minimized this important aspect, but you can be damned sure SCOTUS won't ignore it.

Example: Colorado law states you can fish a privately owned stretch of river as long as you’re not touching the stream bed (ground under the water). Meaning you can float it in a raft and cannot anchor to any fixed object (rock, post etc…). So essentially Colorado allows invading private airspace as long as you’re not setting foot on the soil itself. How is this different than invading air space at a corner crossing?

Matt

Here there is not "taking". There is no building with chickens being killed. The Causby ruling resulted because the actions actually damaged the owners property. Causby doesn't apply here because the momentary occupation of airspace causes no property damage. To this very day the FAA allows low flights over unoccupied land below 500 feet (no minimum specified) because there is no damage. See 91.119 (c).

Matt

You would have to ingress and egress from public property. Not cross private.

Side note, a video online of a couple using their private helicopter to hunt the checker board at Elk Mt ranch this year.

Randy is the perfect front man.

He is absolutely on point with his comments that if we violate laws and take property ownership too lightly. That impact is far greater than our ability to hike, climb or hunt govt land. The consequences are monumental.

But also the value of government railroad and other lands that are locked up is not good for us recreationally either.

Pittman-Robertson Act has once again surpassed its annual record. Nearly $1.2 billion Raised in 2023.

Maybe we should propose a new access fund or tax on all sporting goods, hiking, climbing, boating fishing, off road vehicles. and in addition. every state have a common permit that costs a certain amount. and with all of that we start a new fund.

One that will offer willing land owners and ranchers enough money for a one time payment to buy an easement.

Many ranchers live year to year. They are not billionaires from California. They could use a reasonable influx of cash to allow reasonable access.

They have real value in their property. If we want to share in its value. We need to pay. That’s the way of the modern world.

In this state there's a $5 'land stamp' required with every hunting, fishing or combo license. The money is dedicated to buying land outright or securing right of way/access to private property, such as that owned by logging companies.

And maybe we have a citizen oversight group headed by Randy to oversee the funds. So greasy politicians don’t steal it

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/05/25/pilot-who-used-helicopter-to-access-elk-hunting-might-testify-about-harassment-in-corner-crossing-civil-trial/

Lou there is your quote. Now post someone who has actually been arrested for corner cross.

If you'd like to play a semantics game I'll go back and dig through your posts, and we can start there.

semantics aside...are you saying that you would like to see it be made legal? it sounds as if you would be very happy if the law changed.

When I try to present the other side of this on here, the landowner perspective, I get torched by those who are blind to objectivity. A couple others don't like it when I cite previous legal interpretations which conflict with their religious beliefs.

I am not a landowner who will be affected, but I understand the concern. I am not a Marxist, and I believe in longstanding private property rights and expectations. There are some checkerboard sections near me that I would hunt if it is declared legal once and for all, but finding the exact corner without a survey is going to be nearly impossible, because OnX is so far off in our county and any survey markers are buried deep beneath pine duff.

So before I do it, I will contact the landowner to discuss it with them, rather than march through, thumbing my nose and gloating. Hunters have done enough to wreck relationships with landowners out here, who used to allow permission before a-holes started leaving gates open, riding ATVs through, etc. If declared legal, the relationships will only worsen.

if the landowners own the air space above the shared corner, then they should have equal rights to step through it.

The BLM and USFS do not ticket for corner crossing that I'm aware of. There was an old pamphlet that has been referenced in the past that said it wasn't a legal form of access. That pamphlet is no longer and was an opinion written by a BLM employee. It's based on nothing in the law and currently that pamphlet no longer exists.

You hear lots of chatter about unmarked corners, yes there are unmarked corners. But a majority of the corner markers do exist. I believe if there is a corner that is important to cross and it isn't established, there are ways and means to survey that corner marker in. The BLM has the means to survey those corners in, funding, etc. This is not something that can't be addressed, hunters can find ways for funding, etc. Let's be honest, Lou is being combative about this whole issue, and it just doesn't have to be that way.

It also gets old hearing how hunters are such evil monsters, leaving gates open, etc. Do some of those things happen? Sure. But IME, not very often. If you see something, report it. Don't give me that song and dance that nothing is done. I've reported a handful of violations over the years and most all of them were successfully prosecuted.

What I've ran into in equal amounts are landowners that have illegally posted public roads, public lands, and outright harassed hunters.

Here is an example that happened to me, after contacting the landowner, telling them where I intended to hunt elk on public land, where my camp would be, and also inviting this guy to stop by for dinner or a cold beverage if he was around.

There was NO corner crossing involved at all where I was hunting. That road in the picture is a Natrona County Road and is used by hundreds of hunters a year. I drove out there and the owner pounded that T-post in the road. I called a good friend in Casper as I had very limited cell coverage who contacted the county Sheriff and GF. My buddy and I blew by the sign after the phone calls and continued on to a successful elk hunt.

I contacted the Sheriff about it when I got home and they gave this landowner 3 options, remove the sign, get a ticket and then the Sheriff would remove the sign, or pay to have the road resurveyed (landowner claimed the road had "drifted" from the original county easement but had ZERO proof of it.

That road is still being used by hundreds of hunters.

Point being, there are at least equal number of bad actor landowners that harass hunters every year, post public lands, illegally gate roads, etc.

Best thing is for landowners and hunters to police their own and report violations.

As far as corner crossing upsetting landowners, yeah, it might for a while. I heard the same thing when a group of Montana Sportsmen sued the State of Montana to force recreational access to State lands there (Colorado, are you listening), and also when Stream Access laws passed there too. Yeah, a few landowners threw a fit on both, meh, that's life in the fast lane.

This is nonsense in my experience, but my anecdotal evidence doesn't carry any more weight than your's does. Lou isn't being any more combative than you are, IMO. Matt

If it wasn't an issue, this group wouldn't exist:

https://www.plwa.org/

Being honest, "Lou" is being honest about both sides of this issue, including quoting actual SCOTUS rulings, not just opinions of an attorney paid to express that opinion. Some others are being combative because that is how their religion dictates it, and they are incapable of looking over the fence to see how their neighbor might be impacted, or to objectively look at both sides. I truly believe that some are borderline Marxists who don't believe in private land ownership at all, but that's a topic for a different thread. We all have our own stories of bad actor landowners, just as we all have stories of idiot hunters behaving badly. So what?

Buzzy, your statement that "the majority of corner markers do exist" is your opinion only. There are more than 27,000 corners. Many were surveyed well over 150 years ago, using Gunter's chains. Some were marked by piles of rocks or individual stones. Many others have been buried by 100 years of erosion, plant debris, etc.. Some, if resurveyed today, will be found to be off, maybe significantly off by hundreds of feet, as the USFS learned where I live, and tried to confiscate private property, and even a couple homes, from 13 landowners. Thankfully Congress stepped in and gave it back to the owners.

It's very possible that the higher court will determine that momentary breach of airspace at an established, verified, visible corner does not constitute trespassing. It will be then be immediately appealed. SCOTUS may agree to settle it, or they may let the 10th decision stand, but it won't apply to Montana because Montana is not part of the 10th. Or they may (very likely, since every state has different trespassing laws) push it back to the states as they did with Dobbs, and we'll be right where we are now.

fair enough...the same is true for me...although i do tend to side more on the side of public land should be accessible to the public...but admittedly i dont know that much about it.

"Point being, there are at least equal number of bad actor landowners that harass hunters every year..."

happens all the time here in michigan.

In my experience, the lack of established corner is not the problem you make it out to be. I haven't found, at the very least, but several hundred to maybe a couple/few thousand of them over the past 37 years I've recreated and worked in the field. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Ask any land surveyor they'll tell you the same thing.

Like I said, there are ways to get high use corners surveyed that absolutely fall under the categories you described. Not that difficult. It's another red herring argument.

I think you need to also look up the definition of Marxism. I can state for a fact, that the public wanting access to public lands, by stepping over a corner of SHARED airspace, is not in any way a Marxist idea. Not sure how anyone could draw such a conclusion about corner crossing?

Public Lands and access to them certainly is rather unique to the United States, and a very important distinction between the US and other countries. The idea of public lands needs no defense, only more defenders. Public lands are as American of an idea as apple pie and baseball.

LOL. You clearly don't know what anecdotal means. Your personal experiences don't necessarily represent the absolute truth, and they aren't a basis to make this claim:

"Point being, there are at least equal number of bad actor landowners that harass hunters every year, post public lands, illegally gate roads, etc.,"

My anecdotal experiences are there are far more bad actor hunters than landowners. But that doesn't make it absolutely true, either. There's a reason anecdotal evidence isn't admissible in court, Buzzy. I thought you would have known that.

Matt

Not going 15 rounds with you over anecdotal evidence, obvious you want to be contrary and like to argue. That's cool.

However, when a landowner pounds a T-Post into the middle of a county road with a no trespassing sign that's pretty solid proof.

Wouldn't you agree?

Further, when the sign has the 7L ranch name on it (owned by Doug Cooper), pretty tough to deny who placed the sign there.

Wouldn't you agree?

Also pretty tough to deny that it happened, when I took pictures of said sign.

That kind of proof IS enough evidence for not only a citation, but also for conviction of same.

Wouldn't you agree?

I suspect that's the reason the county Sheriff paid him a visit and the sign was gone when I left with 2 elk in the back of my truck.

Proof of what? That one particular landowner was a d-bag? Sure. I've met a few of those too. I've also met far more landowners who aren't. Again, your very specific and isolated example doesn't justify your claim. Wouldn't you agree?

Matt

But fortunately those are rare. What isn’t rare is hunters bending and pushing ethics and laws. It’s more common than rare.

Drinking and road hunting is still an embarrassing issue

Hope you have a nice day.

Matt

Where there is public land corners and private land corners?

Highly unlikely

Most are not similar the the TV show Yellowstone

Or, their control of public land for exclusive use is a PITA that's not necessary. That has certainly been the case for the owner of elk mountain ranch. he should have just kept his mouth shut when the guys from missouri stepped through air space and no harm whatsoever was caused.

Matt

Fast forward to current times and I spend the 2 weeks before rifle season stopping to pick up empty corn bags in the ditch every couple of miles or so. It always creates a mess when the hunters show up. I wouldn't blame landowners if they dreaded hunting season as it's basically their yard that's getting trashed. Nobody wants to pic up someone else's trash as they are pulling into the driveway, or see it blowing through the pasture. Of course this is all anecdotal, and I've never been to a "corner", and I've never seen a land owner post a public road as private... so take it for what it's worth.

He poses both sides of the story. And should be the front person on this issue.

https://wyofile.com/coalition-representing-4-million-members-backs-corner-crossing-hunters/?utm_source=WyoFile&utm_campaign=58c9e7f743-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_10_05_10_28_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-cedf90c244-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

Every year we have trespassing issues, folks think well we'll walk around after I corner crossing. They get the boot and a ticket. Many times we have given access to small corners of private that are adjacent to the public to hunters with respect for the private.

Plenty of LOs will in fact post public lands and roads up this way in Wyoming GG, it happens more than it should. Most times the sheriff or GW gets it taken care of asap. Plenty of hunters also do illegal things, people will be people regardless if they own land or not. We are all human, plenty of bad apples to go around in all aspects of life.

I quite enjoy the cheap shots you throw around regarding things you really know nothing about. I expect it, and it's just part of the deal when you're an active participant in public land access, hunting, and wildlife related issues. Just goes with the territory for those that participate.

But to clarify, nobody is "pitting landowners and hunters" against each other. The types of issues and cases being discussed in this thread have been going on for decades. Nobody with a half a firing brain cell would deny that there are bad actors in both camps. Some Landowners and some Hunters are not saints, but to be sure there are some excellent representatives in both cases as well.

Where those strong partnerships exist, and there are many, those should be fostered and maintained at all costs.

WYBHA believes that very strongly. Exactly why we've donated $34,000 to WY's AccessYes program in the past 8 years. Further, we've also participated in volunteering to post HMA/WIA signage and also cleaning up trash on many of the HMA/WIA's across the State.

We take this program and the partnerships of willing landowners in this program very seriously. To the extent that in 2017 when some clowns (not hunters as there was no hunting season going on at the time) vandalized a cabin of the private landowners enrolled in the Muddy Mountain HMA. Upon hearing of that incident, WYBHA immediately started a campaign to raise money for the landowners to cover the expenses and repair the vandalism. We raised enough in 48 hours, mostly from our membership and board, to cover it all with room to spare. We presented the check to the landowners, who were very gracious and thankful, but didn't want to take it. So, we donated the money to the AccessYes program.

However, that gesture went a long way to saving that particular HMA which provides a boat load of access to 3 top elk units in the State. That's just a couple examples of the importance BHA places on private landowner/public hunter relationships.

As to the corner crossing case, let's not forget the facts. Fred bullied the carbon county attorney to file charges against the 4 hunters. I'm not one to tolerate bullies and have always had a propensity to punch bullies in the face (literally and figuratively). I can't fault the County Attorney in Carbon County for growing tired of being called, literally, 15 times a day by Fred and his Employees. If she was inclined to take the case and allow herself to be bullied into the court room, so be it. Not my call. Fred also made the call to appeal it the Federal District via filling a 9 million dollar civil lawsuit against 4 blue collar hunters from Missouri. Again, another case of bullying your way around. Upon getting a thrashing in the Federal Court, it was again Fred who made the decision to appeal the case to the 10th circuit. He was afforded the right to appeal, should have that right, and did in fact do so. Great, good for him. But with that, comes consequences of that action, including the consequences to other landowners in the 10th circuit. Also the consequences of having your bluff called by public land owners who are supportive of access to our public lands.

Since this case had implications to a long-time question regarding whether corner crossing was legal or not, this was THE case to perhaps answer those questions. Really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was handed to public land owners on a silver platter. I'm also a strong proponent of everyone being afforded their day in court and having that day shouldn't come down to money. Again, exactly why 2100 hunters/public land users have donated money to see 4 hunters who never trespassed by stepping from one piece of public land to another piece pf public land over a shared corner, to make their case and have that day in court.

Perhaps as sad as it is, that's how we decide disputes that can't be resolved any other way.

In no way is this process pitting hunters against landowners. If someone's view is that simplistic, then I think they should re-examine the long history of whether or not corner crossing is legal access.

Further, I would disagree that this case has done any such thing of pitting hunters against landowners. I was asked to participate in a panel discussion at the University of Wyoming on corner crossing, open to the public. I was the only person on that panel that did not have a law degree, including Jim Magagna, the lobbyist for Wyoming Stockgrowers Association. He was pretty surprised about the importance of hunter/landowner relationships in regard to Wyoming's wildlife, that I stated multiple times in that discussion. Sure, we disagreed on some aspects of the case, but that's where the litigation comes into play. What we did agree on is that Fred was the one responsible for the fire he lit, and also that no matter the outcome of the case, landowners and hunters will absolutely continue to work together.

Since then, Jim and I have met again to discuss next steps regardless of the outcome of the case. There is absolutely no hard feelings either way, it's just how adults conduct business. Neither of us feel the case is pitting hunters and landowners against each other. in fact, Jim flat told me he wouldn't have taken the meeting regarding corner crossing next steps if it wasn't for how I presented the case/facts at the UW panel discussion.

Carry on...

Grilled meat: There is nothing better than fresh meat cooked right over the fire. You can try marinating the meat in advance or simply season it with salt and pepper before cooking.

Game soup: This is a great way to use less popular parts of the animal. Add vegetables, spices, and collect the broth over low heat.

Game sausages: If you have sausage making equipment, you can try making your own game sausages. You can experiment with different spices and additives.

Remember that the main thing in cooking is to experiment and enjoy the process. Bon appetit!!!