Corner Crossing Lawsuit Update

The waypoint on their property is evidence of trespassing, no doubt. But the lawsuit is about devaluing the land due to corner crossing being legal. I just can't wrap my head around it. If the judge rules that they didn't trespass by corner crossing, then the land is "devalued", but they didn't break any law doing it- so how can the claim be valid? Sure, their land isn't "worth" as much, but that wouldn't be the defendant's fault. As for the trespass onto the property after the corner crossing, OK- but that is simple trespassing that would be charged and judged for what it is. Someone stepping onto your property doesn't devalue it.

Any great legal mind out there that can make sense of this?
 
Ya- but it hardly seems relevant to the claim. The claim is corner crossing devalues the land. Not just stepping on it somewhere. If corner crossing is legal, now all of that land is accessible, which devalues it. But if it is legal, how can they get a judgement? Hell, it's legal! If it is illegal, how can they get a judgement? The law is clear and they trespassed and other people will not be allowed thus the land holds its value.

I'm lost...
 
HiMtnHntr said:
A waypoint can be made without traveling into private. I can do it all day long from my couch. Just sayin…

Anybody know what the margin of error is in the gps and Onx? I know the older Garmin and stuff I used to use were only accurate 15’ or so…. Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Better yet, get Onx to say the accuracy number that they will guarantee.

But I’m with HH61, dude thinks he’s in arbitration.
 
HikeHunt61 said:
The waypoint on their property is evidence of trespassing, no doubt. But the lawsuit is about devaluing the land due to corner crossing being legal. I just can't wrap my head around it. If the judge rules that they didn't trespass by corner crossing, then the land is "devalued", but they didn't break any law doing it- so how can the claim be valid? Sure, their land isn't "worth" as much, but that wouldn't be the defendant's fault. As for the trespass onto the property after the corner crossing, OK- but that is simple trespassing that would be charged and judged for what it is. Someone stepping onto your property doesn't devalue it.

Any great legal mind out there that can make sense of this?
Click to expand...
No it is not at all. It is very possible for a cell phone to be off by yards depending on the satellite connections and more. Just because a device records a location as one place does not mean it was actually at that place. Especially if the device is moving… For example I have an ice fishing spot marked. It is a dead tree hold lots of fish at time. On a flat sheet of ice and clear skies, I hike to the point. As I hike the gos is constantly recalculating. If I just keep walking I will made a 10 yard loop all around the spot. 20 to 30 feet away. If I stop and zoom in my location relative to the way point will typically shift and keep shifting. The more I zoom the more I shift. Eventually after a few minutes I get a solid location and starting point.

They would have to prove without a doubt that the phone was perfect accurate.
 
HiMtnHntr said:
A waypoint can be made without traveling into private. I can do it all day long from my couch. Just sayin…

Anybody know what the margin of error is in the gps and Onx? I know the older Garmin and stuff I used to use were only accurate 15’ or so…. Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Look at my other response. Using OnX on my phone, I get some really weird adjustments. But my one honey hole ice fishing point is a good example of how it can jump around…
 
We all know waypoints can be made sitting on your couch. Simply scroll on your phone and drop a pin. Without tracking or a bread crumb trail, this "evidence" is meaningless.

Wow, some very 'sweet' comments on this wyofile post from johnny q public.....who is not very happy with Fred Eshelman
 
one thing i thought of during this lawsuit, which ive been watching awhile...the landowner claimed that he owned the space above the corner thus making it impossible to cross over...is it illegal to hire a chopper to drop you on public land? if not he doesnt have a case...ive leased ranches for cattle and am also a hunter...i think i can see both sides of the story...a large part of value in the owners eye is public land with state owned wildlife in my opinion...checker board was a bad idea...i can sympathize with the owner, if i had the money i woulda bought elk mountain too...but the fact remains, its not his land and its not his elk
 
The argument should be made that the private property was artificially inflated by the feature and belief of having landlocked public land the ass-hat owner thought he had to himself, his clients, paying guests. He guessed wrong and that land is only “devalued” to what it should be since he doesn’t hold title or exclusive use of the other acreage. The devaluation only brought his property back to what it’s worth.
 
Claiming there was a trespass somewhere other than a corner has nothing to do with the corner cross issue. Offering to drop the damages and trying to discredit the hunters shows the plaintiff is becoming desperate.

Give me your address and I can drop a pin on it, does that mean I was there?
HikeHunt61 said:
The waypoint on their property is evidence of trespassing, no doubt.
Click to expand...
 
Guys- I agree. My point was that it is meaningless to the claim, regardless of whether or not they stepped on his land somewhere else. All I said was that it is evidence. Not proof. Besides, again, it's irrelevant.

Read my post again- I make it clear that it is not relevant.
 
I don’t remember what my “I Agree” button said, but I’m a little hinky about Onx sharing that data. Can I get the opt out option please?
 
Bluehair said:
I don’t remember what my “I Agree” button said, but I’m a little hinky about Onx sharing that data. Can I get the opt out option please?
Click to expand...
It was in their terms of agreement. If a lawyer can get it for a civil trial, a LEO can get it for a criminal case. I have never corner crossed, but if I do, I will be using an outdated OnX chip and handheld gps.
 
Southpawshooter said:
It was in their terms of agreement. If a lawyer can get it for a civil trial, a LEO can get it for a criminal case. I have never corner crossed, but if I do, I will be using an outdated OnX chip and handheld gps.
Click to expand...
I wonder how bad I need a product that remembers my every move. The anti-liquor.
 
Eshelman and his attorneys are just mud slinging at this point. Throwing sh-T against the wall to see if anything sticks. Sheer desperation. Their flunky real estate agent Rinehart won’t be allowed as evidence.
”U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl on Feb. 17 disallowed part of the opinion of James Reinhart, who said the value of the $31-million Elk Mountain Ranch could be diminished by “at least 30%” if corner crossing were legal. Skavdahl signed an order stating the agent’s opinion “is not relevant to the issues of damages in this case.” https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news...cle_3e2f9091-7733-5ead-bfbf-2ea0dc6c2236.html
 
Further per that article:

In reaching his conclusion to exclude the agent’s opinion regarding damages, Skavdahl unraveled the logic behind Reinhart’s claim. The agent states that a 30% loss in value would result “f a court were to declare that [the ranch] must allow corner crossing,” according to court papers.
But if Skavdahl or any other court were to find that corner crossing is legal, “then defendants will have done nothing wrong,” the judge wrote.
And if the Missouri hunters are found to have done nothing wrong, “plaintiff will have no legal basis on which to hold them liable” for corner crossing, the judge wrote.

So the only way they get any money is if they were found to have trespassed. But if stepping on someone's property diminishes the value, I'm gonna post a sign in my front yard and sue my neighbor for a cool quarter million when their kids grab that errant baseball off my lawn. MuHaHaHa :devilish::rolleyes:
 
Bluehair said:
I don’t remember what my “I Agree” button said, but I’m a little hinky about Onx sharing that data. Can I get the opt out option please?
Click to expand...

Onx is definitely complying with civil subpoenas and warrants.

Onx is probably selling the data outright like all other aggregators do.

I was looking at data for a public park project recently. My city had paid thousands for mobile phone data analysis showing how people were moving around in the city, which EXACT parts of city parks were popular, etc...

Onx and GoHunt are definitely going to find a way to sell the data they have accumulated. Likely selling that data to BLM, USFS, G&F agencies so that they can plan future projects.
 
Here’s an interesting gps accuracy article https://www.directionsmag.com/article/1172

Obviously cloud cover and location are big factors for gps accuracy. I use a program on my IPhone with Garmin glo at work for gps geo-referencing way points and polygons. I can also take IPhone photos and return to the same photo location. I’m pretty impressed with the accuracy!

The glo is designed to speed up and improve gps accuracy on iPhones, iPads, etc. It runs around $100.
 
I thought the hunters were found not guilty of trespassing? This judge cannot find them guilty. OnX is + or minus 9' I think. Moneybag landowner is FOS and a hog, I hope he loses big!
 
Crampy said:
Onx is definitely complying with civil subpoenas and warrants.

Onx is probably selling the data outright like all other aggregators do.

I was looking at data for a public park project recently. My city had paid thousands for mobile phone data analysis showing how people were moving around in the city, which EXACT parts of city parks were popular, etc...

Onx and GoHunt are definitely going to find a way to sell the data they have accumulated. Likely selling that data to BLM, USFS, G&F agencies so that they can plan future projects.
Click to expand...
I wonder why they didn’t subpoena Apple for the iPhone location data?

I figured they sold basic info like everyone else. But if Onx is selling my track data to some random chicom companies, I’m wiping it, and they can get that from apple. Besides, I still have usgs quads for everywhere I could ever want to go.

As for accuracy, it just costs money. We used Trimble grade control systems on our blades and depending on satellite location and atmospheric conditions, we could get accuracy of 0.02’ (1/4”) sometimes, and 0.05’ frequently. As I recall, under ordinary circumstances Trimble guaranteed 0.10’ or a little over an inch.

These Trimble units were low six figures, but that wasn’t all just the gps receiver. They also required a base station as you will sometimes see sitting on the side of the road. Point being that reliable accuracy costs a bunch of $.

As for these apps stealing your data, it‘s much worse than many of us know. I recently learned that large entertainment companies have begun to track ALL of your location data thru their app’s, and the data is analyzed by a third party to describe your movements. It comes in a nice individualized report. They know whether you like Mexican or Chinese, and your favorite gun shop.:oops: :mad:

Careful next time you sign up for that casino rewards program.
 
Last edited:
If Onx and GPS are as inaccurate as claimed on this thread then how is it that people that are crossing at an unmarked corner can claim that it proves that they did not trespass?

You can not have it both ways.
 
Seamaster said:
If Onx and GPS are as inaccurate as claimed on this thread then how is it that people that are crossing at an unmarked corner can claim that it proves that they did not trespass?

You can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...


Yeah, actually we can.

If the landowner claims it's dead on, great, then corner crossing is simple.

If it's not, then no trespassing.

And, he marked the corner to start with.

It's no the defendants job to prove anything. Just show reasonable doubt, which onx does in its disclaimer.


The lawsuit is exactly like most. Punish the defendants with the process(lawyers fees, court costs, time away from work).
 
Seamaster said:
If Onx and GPS are as inaccurate as claimed on this thread then how is it that people that are crossing at an unmarked corner can claim that it proves that they did not trespass?

You can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I don't know about these supposed claims - but I would remind you the burden of proof is not on the accused.
 
My comment did not pertain to this case. These particular corners in this case were marked, but what about unmarked corners?
I understand that most internet fellows want this case to open the doors to legal methods of corner crossing simply by using their GPS.
 
That was my point - two way street. I have read various places that some fellows are claiming that Onx will prove something with great accuracy, and now the chant seems to be that Onx does not.

I would imagine that landowners do have their exterior points surveyed, and maybe marked, but probably not all of the interior points.

I do not have a dog in this fight. I hope you fellows have fun with your topic.
 
Well, in Arizona, the landowner must clearly post no trespassing. So if you inadvertently cross someone's property that isn't posted, you won't be charged with trespassing. I don't know Wyoming law, but it's clear in Arizona.

Meaning- Onx (or whatever app) accuracy isn't important in an unmarked case- at least in some states. Know your local laws :)
 
Does anyone think the landowner is being supported with legal and monetary donations from other landowners, that are worried if Eshelman loose’s this case, it will put their operations in jeopardy. It would seem they would be but maybe not, if the other land owners do not see it having any affect beyond theses individuals from Missouri and this landowner/Federal land renter.

When this first started and the GofundMe effort started, there were questions if this case would create a precedent on other State and Federal Land access in Wyoming and other western States. Some said, “no”, it would not set a precedent.

Is that still the consensus?
 
Seamaster said:
That was my point - two way street. I have read various places that some fellows are claiming that Onx will prove something with great accuracy, and now the chant seems to be that Onx does not.

I would imagine that landowners do have their exterior points surveyed, and maybe marked, but probably not all of the interior points.

I do not have a dog in this fight. I hope you fellows have fun with your topic.
Click to expand...
Because the accuracy is not likely on OnX it lies with the device that being used. We all know different devices have different levels of accuracy.

But again recall the burden of proof is on the state not the defendant. They would have to prove that you device and location were wrong and unless they have something more than you track history they would be hard fetched as the odds of it being wrong also leaves odds that it was right.
 
I’m not sure of the entire story but wouldn’t they also need proof that the defendants crossed the exact point in question? Possibly boot tracks, video, photos, sheriff watched in person, etc?

What evidence is available that they crossed within 1” of the corner or possibly 2 yards in either direction?
 
2lumpy said:
Does anyone think the landowner is being supported with legal and monetary donations from other landowners, that are worried if Eshelman loose’s this case, it will put their operations in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
Why would a landowners operation be put in jeopardy with corner crossing? That is an absurd statement, they don't own the public land and if they lease it nothing changes.
HikeHunt61 said:
Know your local laws :)
Click to expand...
You hunt Wyoming enough and have family here and you don't know it's the hunter's responsibility to know where they are at, signs or no signs? Now you know...
idahohuntr said:
I don't know about these supposed claims - but I would remind you the burden of proof is not on the accused.
Click to expand...
Correct. In this case however, both sides agreed there was a corner cross over the marker. In fact many by four different guys. The new claim with the meaningless pin has nothing to do with the case.
jims said:
What evidence is available that they crossed within 1” of the corner or possibly 2 yards in either direction?
Click to expand...
They crossed over markers. If someone used a GPS to cross over an unmarked corner, there is no way to prove that person missed the corner.
Just a note: I find markers with my Garmin Rino and it indeed is very accurate.
 
jm77 said:
Why would a landowners operation be put in jeopardy with corner crossing? That is an absurd statement, they don't own the public land and if they lease it nothing changes.
Fffd
Click to expand...
Huh….. guess that means it’s means it’s still the consensus then. Thanks.
 
2lumpy said:
Huh….. guess that means it’s means it’s still the consensus then. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think you're correct. My suspicion is at least on the hunting side, ranches are including their landlocked acreages in their operations. Not to mention being able to control pressure on wider swaths of ground. So of course it will hurt their operations. As such I'm sure there is a lot of "lobbying" $$ being tossed around
 
2lumpy said:
Does anyone think the landowner is being supported with legal and monetary donations from other landowners, that are worried if Eshelman loose’s this case, it will put their operations in jeopardy. It would seem they would be but maybe not, if the other land owners do not see it having any affect beyond theses individuals from Missouri and this landowner/Federal land renter.

When this first started and the GofundMe effort started, there were questions if this case would create a precedent on other State and Federal Land access in Wyoming and other western States. Some said, “no”, it would not set a precedent.

Is that still the consensus?
Click to expand...
The Stock Growers Association via its Director a known lobbyist represent large ranch owners have filed Amicus briefs in support of the Corner Crossing ban. Who knows what happens in dark lit bars in rural places. I think you can fill in the blanks. https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/...rner-crossing-hunters-will-head-back-to-court
 
IDbullz said:
The Stock Growers Association via its Director a known lobbyist represent large ranch owners have filed Amicus briefs in support of the Corner Crossing ban. Who knows what happens in dark lit bars in rural places. I think you can fill in the blanks. https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/...rner-crossing-hunters-will-head-back-to-court
Click to expand...
Magagna is softening on this case. I was on a panel with him and 2 other attorneys at a discussion on corner crossing out at uwyo. I talked with the law professor on the panel and he's convinced we win clear to the 10th. He told Magagna several times when answering questions that it wasn't going to be a favorable outcome for him.

Magagna is now talking compromise...
 
BuzzH said:
Magagna is softening on this case. I was on a panel with him and 2 other attorneys at a discussion on corner crossing out at uwyo. I talked with the law professor on the panel and he's convinced we win clear to the 10th. He told Magagna several times when answering questions that it wasn't going to be a favorable outcome for him.

Magagna is now talking compromise...
Click to expand...
The compromise is simple you cross at the corner by stepping over it and you hunt the public land
 
IDbullz said:
The Stock Growers Association via its Director a known lobbyist represent large ranch owners have filed Amicus briefs in support of the Corner Crossing ban. Who knows what happens in dark lit bars in rural places. I think you can fill in the blanks. https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/...rner-crossing-hunters-will-head-back-to-court
Click to expand...

For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said, “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.

jm77 said:
Why would a landowners operation be put in jeopardy with corner crossing? That is an absurd statement, they don't own the public land and if they lease it nothing changes.
Click to expand...

I think I should have used a different term then, in my absurd statement. These more skilled gentlemen used the term “high stakes” and “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,”

So others consensus seems to say, if they lease it, something will change. Otherwise, what difference will it make to other landowner/leaders and other hunters/fisherman/public users.

I guess that’s still a difference of opinions as to the narrow or a more broad reaching outcomes, in this case.
 
2lumpy said:
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said, “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.



I think I should have used a different term then, in my absurd statement. These more skilled gentlemen used the term “high stakes” and “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,”

So others consensus seems to say, if they lease it, something will change. Otherwise, what difference will it make to other landowner/leaders and other hunters/fisherman/public users.

I guess that’s still a difference of opinions as to the narrow or a more broad reaching outcomes, in this case.
Click to expand...
The private land owners aren't really concerned with people trespassing to access public land they just want to have control over what they have landlocked. To bad so sad the tables are turning and hopefully public land is accessible to the public like It should be.
 
2lumpy said:
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.
For Maggagana, the ultimate verdict is high stakes. If deemed legal, he said private landowners could lose control over people trespassing on their private lands in order to access public lands. He said the decision to let people cross on their land to access public lands should be the landowners decision not the governments.

But public land advocates believe otherwise. Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the group is supporting the hunters' case because if corner crossing was made legal, access to 8.3 million acres of currently landlocked public land could open up.

“The main reason that hunters and fishermen either quit or never start hunting is because they just have no place to hunt and fish,” said Hettick. “So, anything we can do to increase that access is something that we're going to get involved in.”

Although Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a pro-public lands group, Hettick said they also believe in private land rights.

“It's just that we believe that one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said, “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,” he said.



I think I should have used a different term then, in my absurd statement. These more skilled gentlemen used the term “high stakes” and “one property’s rights should not supersede the property rights of the other,”

So others consensus seems to say, if they lease it, something will change. Otherwise, what difference will it make to other landowner/leaders and other hunters/fisherman/public users.

I guess that’s still a difference of opinions as to the narrow or a more broad reaching outcomes, in this case.
Click to expand...
You might be able to find online a simple method to learn how to copy and paste.

As far as leasing public lands and corner access, the most a landowner will have to put up with are the few that will corner cross and hike the miles to hunt. It's not going to change their operation, hunting or otherwise. They just believe that public belongs to only them.
 
jm77 said:
You might be able to find online a simple method to learn how to copy and paste.

As far as leasing public lands and corner access, the most a landowner will have to put up with are the few that will corner cross and hike the miles to hunt. It's not going to change their operation, hunting or otherwise. They just believe that public belongs to only them.
Click to expand...
Okay……. thanks, I been worried sick.
 
"Checker boarding in the West occurred as a result of railroad land grants where railroads would be granted every other section along a rail corridor. These grants, which typically extended 6 to 40 miles from either side of the track, were a subsidy to the railroads."
The railroad companies set this land policy up for profit and it was a bad idea from beginning. I'm all for property owners rights and they definitely will feel the effects first hand if this court rules in favor of the defendants, but as a hunter, tax payer and American citizen who wants as much access to DIY Public Land hunting as possible I sure hope to court comes to the decision that we should have reasonable access without stepping on the property owners rights. Honestly I'm not sure how we find that balance, but sure do want to hunt that land and the critters the roam it!!!

I hope this makes it through the court process, I'm thinking they might drop the case now that they see it's a can of worms...
 
Bookhead said:
Are you concerned with the mailman stepping on the corner of your yard to deliver your mail? No no one is. They are only concerned with what they have to loose if people can access the land that they landlock and have treated as their own
Click to expand...

100% correct ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Every time someone walks on the sidewalk their hands are waving over my airspace, I know i got a multi million dollar lawsuit here, at least 5-10 people a day walk by devaluing my land. but instead i dont let it bug me.

back when we had our farm ground this old preacher man just ran down the fence line on our property. never once did he ask my grandpa or dad for permission to do so. We just asked him not to run during hunting season. Them damn whitetails knew he wasnt a threat we were just concerned for our shooting lanes.
 
I have already donated twice to the Missouri hunter's legal fund. I am not able to put my hands on that link right now - if someone has it, please post it up again. If public land advocates can win this battle for a couple hundred thousand dollars, it will be the biggest success story for conservation and outdoor enthusiasts in our lifetimes. Frankly we should be willing to put a couple million dollars collectively toward this cause.
 
I’m torn on this. I hunt property that’s checker-boarded and the owner of the private and my family goes way back. I’m able to hunt it and he does his best to keep others out with locked gates etc.. I’m not the only one he shares it with, there are a few varmint enthusiasts as well. I like the set up as it is there and wouldn’t want anything changed. I can see where it doesn’t work out to my advantage that I would be very angry about not getting to hunt at least the public land.
 
Captain_coues said:
I’m torn on this. I hunt property that’s checker-boarded and the owner of the private and my family goes way back. I’m able to hunt it and he does his best to keep others out with locked gates etc.. I’m not the only one he shares it with, there are a few varmint enthusiasts as well. I like the set up as it is there and wouldn’t want anything changed. I can see where it doesn’t work out to my advantage that I would be very angry about not getting to hunt at least the public land.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I hope it doesn't work out to your advantage and more of the public can hunt their land.
 
jims said:
Here's a simple solution to Wyo's ailing problem that has dragged on for years and years!

coloradosun.com

Crossing from one parcel of public land to another in Colorado creates a private-property conundrum that’s proven tough to fix

A Colorado lawmaker hopes her corner-crossing plan will help legal passage between adjacent public parcels while protecting property rights
coloradosun.com coloradosun.com

Public Access Landlocked Publicly Owned Land | Colorado General Assembly

leg.colorado.gov leg.colorado.gov
Click to expand...
Except the simple solution seems tough for legislatures to pass for some reason.
 
Captain_coues said:
I’m torn on this. I hunt property that’s checker-boarded and the owner of the private and my family goes way back. I’m able to hunt it and he does his best to keep others out with locked gates etc.. I’m not the only one he shares it with, there are a few varmint enthusiasts as well. I like the set up as it is there and wouldn’t want anything changed. I can see where it doesn’t work out to my advantage that I would be very angry about not getting to hunt at least the public land.
Click to expand...
So as long as it benefits you, it is alright for all public to be locked out? That is the issue, you and the land owner should have no more right to any public land that the rest of us.
 
I've always wondered why the BLM doesn't step in to solve this. Most of those inaccessible public lands are BLM. If the BLM proclaimed any land locked out by private as "closed"- that'd change the landscape in all states without 20 different laws needing to be passed. If the landowner could not access the public land either, they'd change their tune in a hurry.
 
I hunt difficult to access public land through private land i have permission on as well and if some day there is an easement to allow better access to it, it won't hurt my feelings a single bit because it's public land it's no more mine then anyone else's and I'll adapt and still find places to the things I enjoy I always have. It's not the only place I hunt, I hunt all over the state in public land as well and everyone should have equal access to public land in my honest opinion
 
Last edited:
I like a good break when I can get it. I don’t get them that often. I am on your side, when I’m denied access. I feel the same as anyone on here. I won’t lie and say that the limited access I enjoy bugs me because dozens more are cut off. This is in an area where some years there are at most 4 or 5 bucks and of those, maybe 2 mature. Others times you may see one or two. The total area is maybe 30k acres of vast open terrain. If more people were out there, all of the bucks would be doomed. I even make the decision to pass on deer and hunt in an entirely different part of the unit if I’m to kill the only mature buck out there. How’s that for being selfish?
 
Captain_coues said:
I like a good break when I can get it. I don’t get them that often. I am on your side, when I’m denied access. I feel the same as anyone on here. I won’t lie and say that the limited access I enjoy bugs me because dozens more are cut off. This is in an area where some years there are at most 4 or 5 bucks and of those, maybe 2 mature. Others times you may see one or two. The total area is maybe 30k acres of vast open terrain. If more people were out there, all of the bucks would be doomed. I even make the decision to pass on deer and hunt in an entirely different part of the unit if I’m to kill the only mature buck out there. How’s that for being selfish?
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm supposed to agree with you because you "manage" the deer on public land that you have exclusive rights too?

No, you're selfish. You want the same thing Eshelman wants.
 
Last edited:
jm77 said:
Oh, I'm supposed to agree with you because you "manage" the deer on public land that you have exclusive rights too?

No, you're selfish. You want the same thing Eshelman wants.
Click to expand...
Yeah you’re supposed to agree with me. I know I’m 110% right. I would have a problem if I was denied, but I’m not. At least not in this case. You can truthfully say that if you had access to something that was not accessible to everyone, you would be disappointed that you aren’t competing with others or that there needs to be more out here to share it with? I don’t have exclusive rights to it, I said he shares it with others, mostly predator hunters. He really doesn’t like the deer hunted out there. Most wouldn’t think this place has deer. I can say there are five total juniper trees on the WHOLE place and looks like you could find prairie dogs but not deer. It’s not a promise land like you think. If I had you next to me and showed you around the place, you would probably laugh and tell me to stick this place up my ass after I show you the rest of the unit. But it can hold a handful of deer if they don’t get blasted out because of a few permit holders being out there. I don’t even hunt there every year or every other year. It’s been ten years since I’ve killed there, but I’ve had three permits in this unit during that time.
 
So if the judge rules against this NR Landowner and for Corner Crossing, what is the real immediate impact? I’d imagine quite a few hunters will start corner crossing, though I’m not sure all the Sheriff’s and prosecutors in WY will agree.

As I recall, many believe there will not be a legal precedent set to allow corner crossing. I assume, at least, this would squash the use of lawsuits in WY, by rich jerks like Eschelman.
 
BPKHunter said:
So if the judge rules against this NR Landowner and for Corner Crossing, what is the real immediate impact? I’d imagine quite a few hunters will start corner crossing, though I’m not sure all the Sheriff’s and prosecutors in WY will agree.

As I recall, many believe there will not be a legal precedent set to allow corner crossing. I assume, at least, this would squash the use of lawsuits in WY, by rich jerks like Eschelman.
Click to expand...
It would be a step in the right direction regardless. If the landowner does not win, the message would be pretty clear.

Corner crossing was not criminal trespass and it especially in the area would be really hard to charge and prosecute, and it would also send a pretty big barrier for anyone wanting to sue in civil court for damages done by corner crossing...
 
I think its going to depend on what the federal judge decides and then what happens next with an appeal to the 10th.
 
The 4 Missouri hunters were found not guilty of trespassing, that sets a precedent! I don’t know why this case is in Federal Court?
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

My '23 Muley Pack Out.jpg
333C8954-1F06-488D-9AA3-90C566B04C22.jpeg
IMG_3016.jpeg
20230911_080446.jpg
23E3C816-1089-426B-9AF2-F258F70A5463.png
20240712_204741.jpg
IMG_20201112_185540_865.jpg
44376.jpeg
Utah Bull Elk Hunting
1724164294089.png
IMG_20160808_172915.jpg
mag7.jpg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom