Your still not following the conversation.Aaaaaaaaaaand?
Not the one about me. Which is the only conversation you bring here.Your still not following the conversation.
My point isn't to protect anyone Relh. My point is to actually fix this problem and everyone get on with their lives.Tristate why don't you stop your bias opinions and wait and see how the case goes in Federal court. You might just get your opinions shot down and your rancher & outfitter friends get it stuck in them also.
RELH
Did Roe vs Wade settle the abortion debate??????Tristate are you really that dense and ignorant. If a federal court rules that the hunters had a legal right to jump corners. That along opens all those corners in every state to a legal trespass by hunters. that in it self will open millions of acres to hunters that have been blocked in the past.
The only other way to open the public land is to force the private land owners to grant an easement though their property and that is violating the rights of land owners.
RELH
And yes! It doesn't violate rights of landowners. That's exactly what we have here.The only other way to open the public land is to force the private land owners to grant an easement though their property and that is violating the rights of land owners.
RELH
I hunt on a ranch with easement rights. My family owns land with easement rights. It works and has worked since before you or I were ever born.And yes! It doesn't violate rights of landowners. That's exactly what we have here.
Another worthless post from Tri-tipNot the one about me. Which is the only conversation you bring here.
Look, there have been dozens of attorneys looking at this case very closely. They all agree that the current path forward that we're taking with the civil case is the way to go. That includes law professors, retired law professors, and more attorneys than I care to list.We do it here in Texas when it doesn't benefit more than a single person. So yes it will stand up if it benefits tens of thousands of hunters. Plus once it's a separate piece of law it's not just riding on imenent domain.
Why do you not believe we have been doing this for ages here AND IT WORKS?
Perhaps they will write an article on how to shoot deer eating corn from a feeder. TriState can weigh in with a lifetime of experience on that subject.]Not a mention of a taxidermist from Texas...even though you're a legend in your own mind, legal "scholar", and access "expert".
Opinions vary...and your opinion means zip to me and this case.I'm not saying they shouldn't defend themselves. I'm saying this isn't the magic bullet you pray for.
This is how lawyers make MONEY. Sure they make sure and stroke your ego Buzz. You're the most important person in Wyoming and MM. Feel that lumpy thing in the corner of your mouth. THATS THE HOOK!?
It must because you spent the last 2 days arguing against it. Maybe that was drunk Buzz.Opinions vary...and your opinion means zip to me and this case.
If someone is " seizing" your land why worry about the value of land you don't own? You're not making much sense with this last post.The public land in Texas must not be that valuable for hunting or anything else since none of those private land owners has not sued over their 4th. amendment rights being violated for unlawful seizure of property for the purpose of an easement to public property.
RELH
It's mildly entertaining making you look foolish...and so easy it's almost not fair.It must because you spent the last 2 days arguing against it. Maybe that was drunk Buzz.
You're not making any sense.That is my point. The public land in Texas is not worth suing over like the public land in other states that the private property owners are up in arms about due to it's value to them on grazing and paid hunting rights.
RELH
Well you're in luck Buzz. I don't make you look foolish. You're just foolish.It's mildly entertaining making you look foolish...and so easy it's almost not fair.
You're an idiot.......Well you're in luck Buzz. I don't make you look foolish. You're just foolish.
Keep spending that money paying the lawyers. Must be other people's money.
You're owned by an idiot.You're an idiot.......
The basis of your logic is CYNICISM.Another asinine reply from our own wise one. Tristate are you forgetting that about 90% of your state hunting is done on private land that you pay to hunt. Very little is done on your public land.
As for your beef industry, they must have figured out to charge the customer for that beef as much as your private land owners charge hunters to hunt or trespass on their property.
Like I said, if that public land you have left over was worth a damn, your ranchers would have figured out a way to tie it up and exploit it's value.
RELH
My point isn't to protect anyone Relh. My point is to actually fix this problem and everyone get on with their lives.
What happens in federal court just resolves an issue between a couple of parties and then we still have to deal with the shifting tides this way or that that everyone likes to call precedent.
I'm fairly new to the site but have some local knowledge of what happened. Here are a few things I believe to be fact;Texas Supreme Court affirms distinction between easements implied from prior use and easements implied from necessity
The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed that easements by necessity exist when an owner sells a landlocked parcel that has no access to a public road. That owner (and subsequent) owners have a right to go over remaining land of the grantor to access to public way. For such a right to be recognized...scholar.harvard.edu
Here is a summary of a judgement protecting necessity easement in Texas. I believe there are links for and reference to law.
Had a long discussion with an attorney from Texas very early in the corner crossing case about this very thing.Texas Supreme Court affirms distinction between easements implied from prior use and easements implied from necessity
The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed that easements by necessity exist when an owner sells a landlocked parcel that has no access to a public road. That owner (and subsequent) owners have a right to go over remaining land of the grantor to access to public way. For such a right to be recognized...scholar.harvard.edu
Here is a summary of a judgement protecting necessity easement in Texas. I believe there are links for and reference to law.
Sweet bajeebus Buzz,Had a long discussion with an attorney from Texas very early in the corner crossing case about this very thing.
He was a super good guy and very smart.
Doesn't apply to Wyoming or most any other Western State in particular to federal land.
North Dakota also established ROW's on their section lines, but again, that's an outlier and is meaningless to other Western States.
All the attorneys, including the one from Texas that contacted me, all agree that the Federal civil case is the way to go.
A decision at the Federal level makes anything a State can do, one way or the other in regard to corner crossing, meaningless for access to Federal Lands. Simply put, they can pass all the State access laws they want making corner crossing illegal and it means ZIP to a precedent setting Federal case. You know the pesky Supremacy Clause of our Constitution and all that.
You can crow all you want about Texas, but state law only applies to one state. That's not what we're after, for more than obvious reasons.
No, its not the way to go. You understand less about the politics of the West than you do this civil case.Sweet bajeebus Buzz,
I've been telling you this entire time you don't have it in Wyoming.
But it is the way you need to go if you want to settle this in finality. The way you are going now the attorneys get richer and bat that ball back and forth.
Wrong again and learn to read.Yes. Every single attorney profiting off of this lawsuit have said you are doing the right thing.
Why don't you tell us why they said don't pass a state law guaranteeing access?
I never dodged a single question and you never answer one. Why is that?All that to dodge a question. Back in the liquor cabinet again I guess.
I don't know who says nobody is working on a state law for Wyoming. I didn't. I just told you that's how you actually fix this for good and you got butt hurt.
Yes. Every single attorney profiting off of this lawsuit have said you are doing the right thing.
Why don't you tell us why they said don't pass a state law guaranteeing access?
Hell if I know. I just know I didn't say nobody was working on it.I never dodged a single question and you never answer one. Why is that?
So who is it working on legislation in Wyoming to make corner crossing legal?
You're an expert and all...you surely must know.
I do.Hell if I know. I just know I didn't say nobody was working on it.
No the access restriction is private. You want to get to the Federal.It's federal land
Have you noticed the past 2 times we have argued its based on you believing something I never said?I do.
Can I answer for him?So who is it working on legislation in Wyoming to make corner crossing legal?
Have you noticed you argue about everything and know next to nothing?Have you noticed the past 2 times we have argued its based on you believing something I never said?
How would you know? You hear things I don't actually say.Have you noticed you argue about everything and know next to nothing?
You still ignoring me, carpetbagger??
One more lemming showing up with the brilliant idea of "Tristate bad".Ah, some things never change - like Tristate lecturing the entire forum on legal issues that he knows nothing about.
Tri, go back to mounting javelinas and out of the deep end of the pool.
Hawkeye
That's part of the issue here. There are two different topics involved with this case. One is a civil case which if lost some people believe it will open up public land all over the US.Sorry for the vector:
I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.
What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
Do some research into the case, it's all been explained in various articles wyofile and others.Sorry for the vector:
I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.
What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
Just wondering if there was a relatively simple explanation- that's all...Do some research into the case, it's all been explained in various articles wyofile and others.
A ruling will set a precedent in the 10th Circuit (Rocky Mtn Region). The ruling will address air rights. The case will be appealed to the 10th Circuit appellate court. Thus, in the end, we should have very clear legal language defining if people can access public land via corner jumping in the Rocky Mtn Region. A favorable ruling in federal court will have significant implications on any state law in the future. I am sure there are better legal minds on here that could explain it better.I did read all the articles pointed to (not the Texas ones- I don't think they are relevant). I'm still not clear on how the civil case will impact anything. I get that folks want precedent set- but does a civil case do anything to set precedent? Or is there a separate decision that will be made in another court that will then impact the civil case?
The articles are vague at best on the point.
Nice- got it- thanks!A ruling will set a precedent in the 10th Circuit (Rocky Mtn Region). The ruling will address air rights. The case will be appealed to the 10th Circuit appellate court. Thus, in the end, we should have very clear legal language defining if people can access public land via corner jumping in the Rocky Mtn Region. A favorable ruling in federal court will have significant implications on any state law in the future. I am sure there are better legal minds on here that could explain it better.
Ah, some things never change - like Tristate lecturing the entire forum on legal issues that he knows nothing about.
Tri, go back to mounting javelinas and out of the deep end of the pool.
Hawkeye
No the access restriction is private. You want to get to the Federal.
Going a step further the Federal Judge has approved the UIA as applicable to the case.Nice- got it- thanks!
If you're really interested...Sorry for the vector:
I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.
What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
Hmmmmmmmm.......Good podcast. As you stated, the nuisance aspect and bruised air discussions were interesting.
Funny- I can't remember which lawyer- but they supported the thought of BLM or state of Wyoming using condemnation/easements. Now that was interesting. They suggested that if the BLM/State started going down that road of condemning (say a 10 ft path), that most landowners would opt to agree for a simple easement instead to have better control of access (no trucks, etc)- ending up with a very low cost solution to the problem.
Nope, you cant build on property lines for one (county and state laws regarding off-sets) and secondly, it would be impeding the right to access via the UIA. Go look at the case law on the UIA, it simply involved fences. Fences that had to be removed under the UIA. There is also significance in the lease agreements with the BLM that ranches sign. You can look into those as well.It will be good if the Missouri 4 wins the civil case, and in the process a precedent is set that bruising the air over their 2 feet of corner does not constitute a trespass.
Again, what my concern is, the precedent is all well and good, but does not keep a sheriff from charging someone with trespass in the very next case of a hunter crossing a corner. Yes, the legal precedent will aid the hunter’s lawyer in his defense. But let’s say I'm wrong about that, and the legal precedent somehow translates itself to being applicable to all laws/boundaries etc in question, and that sheriffs in every county everywhere know about the precedent and don’t press charges. The UIA precedent is based (according to the very smart lawyers) on the landowner not USING that airspace, thus having no right to stop others. Fast forward then. Pretend I’m a rich, spoiled brat with more money than water. I decide that the best place for my shed(s) to house my ranch equipment is right on those corners. I build my sheds 20’ tall, because I like two floors to reduce footprint on my beautiful ranch. Since I was willing to spend $50K on lawyer fees, that $20K shed is a bargain. Gee, as a hunter, I now need a pretty whopping big ladder to cross that “used” airspace into “unused” airspace. Sure, somebody might sue the landowners for nuisance use of their land. And gee, they MIGHT even win that case. But then the landowner comes up with another corner case (see what I did there?). And worse, EACH case will have to be litigated.
What I fear is we are hanging our hats on lawyers, rather than laws or documented right of way via ownership or easement.
“Game over” would be that the legal description of the area in question is no longer in question at all. An easement or ownership is the only actual solution I’ve heard or read about. I hope our smart lawyers know something they aren’t telling us!
Sheriffs and County attorneys are elected positions as Mayfield-Davis learned the hard way.Got it. Ya, let's hope for a successful result, and that the precedent keeps sheriffs and DAs from pressing charges.
That's exactly what is happening.What I fear is we are hanging our hats on lawyers, rather than laws or documented right of way via ownership or easement.
Film it if they do.All I can tell you is that I know where I'm hunting next year. And I hope they try and harass me.
That would be evidence of the Arse whooping me and the boys give them.Film it if they do.
U.S. attorney: Corner-crossing prosecution didn’t violate hunters’ rights - WyoFile
Wyoming’s top federal prosecutor believes that Carbon County justice officials did not violate federal law when they charged Missouri men with criminal trespass at Elk Mountain Ranch.wyofile.com
Well looks like the idiot from Texas that isn't attorney might have actually nailed this in post 3.U.S. attorney: Corner-crossing prosecution didn’t violate hunters’ rights - WyoFile
Wyoming’s top federal prosecutor believes that Carbon County justice officials did not violate federal law when they charged Missouri men with criminal trespass at Elk Mountain Ranch.wyofile.com
No you didn't. Doesn't mean anything in regard to the civil case.Well looks like the idiot from Texas that isn't attorney might have actually nailed this in post 3.
I'm not talking about the civil case. This was the harassment thread. Try to keep your cases and threads straight. That's been your problem from step one. You haven't been able to keep anything organized in your mind and then you start accusing me of things I never said.No you didn't. Doesn't mean anything in regard to the civil case.
It's ok tri, you just don't understand the issue. It's not your fault, you just have a habit of commenting on things you aren't involved with or understand.
Did you read the article?I'm not talking about the civil case. This was the harassment thread. Try to keep your cases and threads straight. That's been your problem from step one. You haven't been able to keep anything organized in your mind and then you start accusing me of things I never said.
That's not what the op was about nor was it what I was commenting about in post #3. It isn't what I commented about in post #183. Your all over road and off the res.Did you read the article?
The US attorney made an outfitter take down a gate and no trespassing sign. In other words that ended the harassment that the outfitter was creating with access.
That's a win for public land hunters, and public access.
We'll see what happens on the rest of his complaint.
There is a state law here regarding hunter harassment. A handful of people have been charged, but there is a reluctance by GF to issue the citations.Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
So you are agreeing with my post #3.?Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
Yep. Nobody likes hearing I told you so.Tristate you are so full of yourself that it boogles the mind. Get a life and go back to your taxi work. That may be one thing you can get right. But I would not take your word on that.
I believe after this is settled in court, the American hunter will be the ones to benefit from the court decision and the outfitters and big landlocking ranchers will take it in the shorts. They went to far on this incident and now it is getting out of the Wyoming state courts that were bias.
RELH
You should know, you'll argue when you're dead wrong about all kinds of things.Yep. Nobody likes hearing I told you so.
Especially when I told you so.
At least I can tell what thread I'm posting on and I don't accuse people of saying things that were never said.You should know, you'll argue when you're dead wrong about all kinds of things.
I just wasted far too much time reading this **** show. The only thing you have said in this entire thread I agree with is “The idiot from Texas” part.Well looks like the idiot from Texas that isn't attorney might have actually nailed this in post 3.
And he is an idiot.I just wasted far too much time reading this **** show. The only thing you have said in this entire thread I agree with is “The idiot from Texas” part.
Not a doubt in my mind that SS takes the pipe. Dude is more gay than the rainbow flag he flies.SS Prayer is aways good to thank the all Mighty.
I see you are on the sex deal again are you Gay. Sure sounds like it.
I wouldn't judge ya if you're batting for the other side.
Could the hunters have a civil case for harassment if the county revenuers won’t charge The ranch criminally? Seems like some crafty lawyer could find a civil code that was violated.Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
Yes, more crafty lawyers are sure to fix it.Could the hunters have a civil case for harassment if the county revenuers won’t charge The ranch criminally? Seems like some crafty lawyer could find a civil code that was violated.