Corner crossing case

Not to toss cold water.

But do you think there will "payback"?

As in landowners exiting access programs as an FU?
 
Not to toss cold water.

But do you think there will "payback"?

As in landowners exiting access programs as an FU?
I heard that kind of threat when Montana sportsmen fought for state land access in the 80's, heard it again when Montana passed stream access.

Lots of hot air. I don't believe the gracious landowners that allow access are going to jump out of the accessyes program over a corner crossing case in carbon county. If anything they should donate to a political campaign to send an out of control sheriff and county attorney to the unemployment line.
 
What's interesting to me, is with the hundreds of thousands of acres of public land on the other sides of corners, sportsman still find negatives to comment about. I actually know a hunter who lives in Carbon County that tells people they have to prove they crossed at the corner or they will get a ticket from the game warden. He tells people he can't publicly support the effort to make corner cross legal because he works at the BLM! I think it's a social media phenomenon. I don't have any other explanation.

What's really disconcerting is the so called sportsman/conservation groups, like the Wyoming Wildlife Federation or TRCP, who use public land access as a selling tool for membership, but will not support this effort or haven't come forward. Other than Steve Rinella, I haven't seen or heard any support from TV public land hunting advocates either, just excuses or neutrality.

Once more I'll say, good for Wyoming BHA for jumping in with both feet on this one!
 
Just got to watch the Task Force as once they get transferable landowner tags Access Yes will not stay competitive. I actually hope it goes to court and the case determines that it is legal and paves the way for all of us to access these lands. Until then everyone will be risk being the next "example"
Doubtful this will be the end of the issue but it’s certainly a textbook case for support by sportsmen. Transferable tags have a HUGE uphill battle before that ever happens in Wyoming. This County prosecuting attorney didn’t think this one through very clearly, if she’s wise she’ll abandon the case, time will tell, if not she’ll have a very very hard time getting re-elected.
 
Hmm. I've driven dozens of forest service and BLM roads that pass through private property to public property on the other side. Seems as if the gov't can force access to public lands when they desire to. Also seems like they could force easements for trails if they chose. Corner hopping just seems so hokey to me. Wouldn't it be easier to ask for access to considerable tracts of land via the right agencies? Of course, I sometimes wonder if the fed depts are just fine with zero access to those lands for whatever reasons they may have...
 
You're not talking about just a few acres. There are miles upon miles of checkard-board in southern Wyo as well as other scattered areas across Wyo where corners cross on a public road.

A lot of the best habitat in Southern Wyo checkard-board country is a heck of a long ways in and zigzagging from one square mile section to the next could be a heck of an ordeal. Some are fairly close to county roads while others may take an overnighter to access.

It can be a royal pain in the rear hunting from one section area of public at a time to the next...believe me I've done it! You can imagine what it would be like if a buck or bull is in fairly open country and the only draw for miles to hide your approach is on private land. The public land may be open to hiking into to hunt but it's not exactly easy access with prime hunting. There is likely some prime country with little hunting pressure if a guy has lots of time and burns a lot of boot leather.

With that said, it would open up gobs of new public land that currently is "risky" and "wishy-washy" knowing whether it is legal to hunt. I just hope we all finally get a yes or no answer to the question whether corner crossing is legal or not! What's exciting is if this public land finally is open to public hunters! It opens up a whole new can of worms with a lot more opportunity that presently doesn't exist for do it yourself hunters!

It may be a lot more complicated than coming out with a yes/no answer from 1 court case?
 
Last edited:
What's interesting to me, is with the hundreds of thousands of acres of public land on the other sides of corners, sportsman still find negatives to comment about. I actually know a hunter who lives in Carbon County that tells people they have to prove they crossed at the corner or they will get a ticket from the game warden. He tells people he can't publicly support the effort to make corner cross legal because he works at the BLM! I think it's a social media phenomenon. I don't have any other explanation.

What's really disconcerting is the so called sportsman/conservation groups, like the Wyoming Wildlife Federation or TRCP, who use public land access as a selling tool for membership, but will not support this effort or haven't come forward. Other than Steve Rinella, I haven't seen or heard any support from TV public land hunting advocates either, just excuses or neutrality.

Once more I'll say, good for Wyoming BHA for jumping in with both feet on this one!


You buddy Buzz is pretty tight with one, he should give him a call
 
Read for yourself what he thinks. Buzz and I have both talked to him.
You have contributed to the cause, correct?


I know what he thinks.

But I missed the podcast with him jumping in.

Or do you have some insider knowledge?

Last podcast I listened to was a season wrap up.

You're the one who called out the voices in hunting media. I'm just agreeing
 
You're the one who called out the voices in hunting media. I'm just agreeing
And I was pointing out to you where you could read what one of them said and that both of us (you called on Buzz by name) had talked to him.

If you know what he thinks, why would you need some insider knowledge? You certainly have a unique way of agreeing, I'll give you that. Glad you apparently donated to the cause.
 
And I was pointing out to you where you could read what one of them said and that both of us (you called on Buzz by name) had talked to him.

If you know what he thinks, why would you need some insider knowledge? You certainly have a unique way of agreeing, I'll give you that. Glad you apparently donated to the cause.


Just interesting how hard you tried to make a point, without saying his name.

I knew Rinellas position prior as well.

If you've made a business by "creating public land advocates", and made videos helicoptering into land locked areas, then when this case comes up, a season wrap up podcast, is weak cheese.

You obviously agreed, as you tried to throw out a criticism, without a name. If you disagree with me, then why would you have contacted him? Can't have it both ways.

2nd only to the jackwagons in my state trying to sell off the public, corner hoping is one of the biggest topics going.

So if your Rinella, Newberg, Born and Raised, HUSH, etc, etc, etc, you should be lending your platform(s) to the cause you've given lip service to. Those platforms made possible by dudes supporting you, and your business model with subscription, views, and sponsor support .
I gurantee all the above will roll into SLC in February to the expo rocking their public land hunter tees, and hats.

But further, in the outdoor space, in the west, on public land hunting, Rinella and Newberg are the biggest names, with the largest reach. Steve obviously understood he needed to be vocal. Good on him.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree that its disappointing more of the public land advocates are not stepping up.

Its also been eye opening the level of support as well from lesser known sources. People I've never heard of or even knew cared so much about public lands.

We've also had attorneys from 3 states offer their services pro bono to assist the paid attorneys any way they can and from some pretty large firms. There will be more on that soon...I'm sure.

In the meantime, the positive is that it's started the conversation about how much people value their public lands and access to them.
 
I have to agree that its disappointing more of the public land advocates are not stepping up.

Its also been eye opening the level of support as well from lesser known sources. People I've never heard of or even knew cared so much about public lands.

We've also had attorneys from 3 states offer their services pro bono to assist the paid attorneys any way they can and from some pretty large firms. There will be more on that soon...I'm sure.

In the meantime, the positive is that it's started the conversation about how much people value their public lands and access to them.
People that study human behavior claim for every person that takes the time to write a letter, make a donation, speak out in a public hearing, etc. there are hundreds, if not thousand who have a similar opinion or belief....... that never let their feeling be known.

The same would be true for both sides of any issue.

I suspect the folks who have the power to decide these legal issues are fully away of this human behavior and only the most arrogant and foolish ignore it.

Having said that, with this public access issue, it’s critical that as many public land access advocates make some kind of public statement supporting corner crossing. A $5 donation to the gofundme effort has a far reaching effects on outcome in this issue. If 50,000 sportsman made even the smallest donation, their participation has far more influence on the outcome than the money will. Of course, those that can give more, that can afford more, are needed because, unfortunately, there are always expenses associated with these legal matters.
 
I have to agree that its disappointing more of the public land advocates are not stepping up.

Its also been eye opening the level of support as well from lesser known sources. People I've never heard of or even knew cared so much about public lands.

We've also had attorneys from 3 states offer their services pro bono to assist the paid attorneys any way they can and from some pretty large firms. There will be more on that soon...I'm sure.

In the meantime, the positive is that it's started the conversation about how much people value their public lands and access to them.


If those lawyers, or firm's want to be made public, I hope you will. I'd love to drop a call and thank them.


If there was a silver lining to Covid, I think it woke up folks to how blessed we are to have those lands.(hopefully they also learn how to use a trash bag?)
 
I also would like to see more of the DIY/public land tv folks pushing this, but I put Mr. Newberg in a different category than is being insinuated in some of the discussion...there is no question in my mind his efforts (and scars) fighting for public lands and wildlife to the benefit of DIY hunters. Many other platforms and personalities who do not have a history of fighting for us are who I'd like to see belly up to the bar. $.02.
 
I also would like to see more of the DIY/public land tv folks pushing this, but I put Mr. Newberg in a different category than is being insinuated in some of the discussion...there is no question in my mind his efforts (and scars) fighting for public lands and wildlife to the benefit of DIY hunters. Many other platforms and personalities who do not have a history of fighting for us are who I'd like to see belly up to the bar. $.02.
I wonder what's more intrusive accessing public land: flying through the air in a helicopter or breaking the air space stepping over a corner?

I have high regards for Randy as a friend, fellow hunter and his efforts to access public lands DIY. To say I am disappointed he is not publicly behind this effort is an understatement.
 
Randy is definitely a great public land advocate and has done a lot for it. I believe his Mom is battling cancer which I’m sure has drawn him away a bit.
 
I also would like to see more of the DIY/public land tv folks pushing this, but I put Mr. Newberg in a different category than is being insinuated in some of the discussion...there is no question in my mind his efforts (and scars) fighting for public lands and wildlife to the benefit of DIY hunters. Many other platforms and personalities who do not have a history of fighting for us are who I'd like to see belly up to the bar. $.02.
I think I’m a hopeless pragmatic.

This public land matter is something I believe in strongly.

There are individuals that I care little for, on this thread and in the real world. They have made it clear they have issues with me.

On this matter, this public access issue, I will easily set my feelings toward those folks aside and work with them. I am willing to compartmentalize my attitudes and my quarrels and I’ll work together with people or organizations that I might otherwise refuse to give the time of day to, if it’s the right thing to do. Like wise, my friendship with someone I like and respect may have a disagreement with, is never in jeapordy.

If you’re willing to fight for public land access, I’ll fight with you........ period. If you won’t.......... that’s on you.
 
I wonder what's more intrusive accessing public land: flying through the air in a helicopter or breaking the air space stepping over a corner?

I have high regards for Randy as a friend, fellow hunter and his efforts to access public lands DIY. To say I am disappointed he is not publicly behind this effort is an understatement.
He has stated before this happened that he wasn't I was also disappointed but not suprised
 
Not a fan of all the gofund scams that go on. But this one i can stand behind. Most importantly i am going to share the link and help get the word out
 
I wonder what's more intrusive accessing public land: flying through the air in a helicopter or breaking the air space stepping over a corner?

I have high regards for Randy as a friend, fellow hunter and his efforts to access public lands DIY. To say I am disappointed he is not publicly behind this effort is an understatement.
I think he mentioned once that he consulted with lawyers and that the lawyers felt it was illegal to cross at corners and I think that is why he shies away from it. I think deep down, he doesn't believe it is legal, but what do I know.
 
I think he mentioned once that he consulted with lawyers and that the lawyers felt it was illegal to cross at corners and I think that is why he shies away from it. I think deep down, he doesn't believe it is legal, but what do I know.
This is not correct. Randy fears civil trespass penalties as a consequence to legalizing corner cross. At least this may be what one lawyer told him. I can assure that won't happen in Wyoming.
 
Based on the updated information, Over $62,000 now has been raised. It is nice to see many want to see this corrected and hopefully this is something that will be for the betterment of hunting and other uses by having public access to land that should be available to all.
 
This is not correct. Randy fears civil trespass penalties as a consequence to legalizing corner cross. At least this may be what one lawyer told him. I can assure that won't happen in Wyoming.
But couldn't they file a civil suit now if they wanted to? There is nothing stopping them, is there? I know he said that about civil suits, but there must be more to the story.
 
But couldn't they file a civil suit now if they wanted to? There is nothing stopping them, is there? I know he said that about civil suits, but there must be more to the story.
Sure they could file a civil suit and ask for what damages? There are no damages associated with a corner cross. Landowners don't own the game and have no expressed right to the hunting on public land. The idea the legislature would try to pass an automatic civil penalty is quite a stretch, at least in Wyoming.
 
I wonder what's more intrusive accessing public land: flying through the air in a helicopter or breaking the air space stepping over a corner?

I have high regards for Randy as a friend, fellow hunter and his efforts to access public lands DIY. To say I am disappointed he is not publicly behind this effort is an understatement.


We agree, 100%.
 
This is not correct. Randy fears civil trespass penalties as a consequence to legalizing corner cross. At least this may be what one lawyer told him. I can assure that won't happen in Wyoming.


If true, and I'm not questioning you, then he owes it to his base, to come out publically and address it.

As it stands now, he's in the shadows.

Despite all his talk about not being afraid to piss off anyone.

I'm shocked by his silence
 
Sure they could file a civil suit and ask for what damages? There are no damages associated with a corner cross. Landowners don't own the game and have no expressed right to the hunting on public land. The idea the legislature would try to pass an automatic civil penalty is quite a stretch, at least in Wyoming.
I agree with you and that is why I say there must be more to Randy's view, but maybe he is actually afraid of a law being passed...I don't know.
 
I agree with you and that is why I say there must be more to Randy's view, but maybe he is actually afraid of a law being passed...I don't know.


He wrote a post on his site.

Basically it was "I, I, I, I , I.

"He's" paid a law firm. They gave him an opinion. So hes sitting it out.

I'm sure he's back channeled to Buzz and JM, I'll even venture he's donated.

But, he is sitting it out.

Now bet your azz, when Wyoming citizens win, he'll be sure and video himself jumping a corner.

It's a sad thing, when you put someone on a pedestal, and then you learn otherwise.

So, in short. "We win", in which case the issue is settled. Or "we lose", in which case the issue is settled. As it sits, no one wins, us or landowners.

His contention is bullshit. "The legislature will......", as if political pressure isn't already being applied.

I won't lie, I'll be not as excited to hear his "public land advocacy" speech.



Imagine if TR, had just gone along with lawyer opinion in his day, instead of standing up and forcing the issue
 
Last edited:
He wrote a post on his site.

Basically it was "I, I, I, I , I.

"He's" paid a law firm. They gave him an opinion. So hes sitting it out.

I'm sure he's back channeled to Buzz and JM, I'll even venture he's donated.

But, he is sitting it out.

Now bet your azz, when Wyoming citizens win, he'll be sure and video himself jumping a corner.

It's a sad thing, when you put someone on a pedestal, and then you learn otherwise.

So, in short. "We win", in which case the issue is settled. Or "we lose", in which case the issue is settled. As it sits, no one wins, us or landowners.

His contention is bullshit. "The legislature will......", as if political pressure isn't already being applied.

I won't lie, I'll be not as excited to hear his "public land advocacy" speech.

Imagine if TR, had just gone along with lawyer opinion in his day, instead of standing up and forcing the issue.

I've written many posts on my site about this topic. I've brought it up on many podcasts. I've stated these points in many interviews. Since this seems to now be about me and my positions, I'll reiterate what I've said many times, in many places, long before this case came about.

Corner crossing is civil trespass. Many attorneys, including this DA, consider it to also be criminal trespass, something governed by state statutes.

Those legal opinions are arrived at due to how property law is currently adjudicated in this country. The legal concept that drives the definition of what rights are owned by a property owner is the "ad coelum doctrine." I linked it so you can read what it means.

That doctrine has been the accepted legal interpretation of what rights a landowner has. I may not like it, hunters may not like it, we may wish it to be different. So long as that doctrine is held by the courts and most western state legislatures, landowners and their allies have the upper hand in how these issues get settled.

Yes Hoss, I've hired legal experts to advise me on the corner crossing topic. I hired the first firm in 2014. That firm litigated the Montana Stream Access law, often deemed the most favorable stream access law in the country. They know this stuff. It is their specialty. I talked to them again last week. They reconfirmed that under the current legal doctrines that define property law in the US, corner crossing is civil trespass.

I've spent a lot of money on legal opinions related to corner crossing because I want to see it solved in a lasting way. I've explained to Jeff, Buzz, and others involved with the WY effort what I've been up to.

Earlier this year I hired another law firm to look at other ways to solve this issue and possibly negate application of the "ad coelum doctrine." That doctrine is the key, not what I want, not what we think is "fair," not what we think is BS. That's the reality we face to have lasting change. We have to overcome the judicial and legislative priority given to the ad coelum doctrine.

The firm I am currently working with has been looking at old Federal land grant acts to see what rights were retained under the many land give aways to homesteaders, private companies, railroads, newly admitted states, repossessed properties, etc. What if those old land grants have retained rights by the Federal government? What if those homesteaders and companies took those lands with public encumbrance? Nobody to my knowledge has ever investigated that.

We are researching cases from the last 20 years where landowners are suing each other in civil cases to claim the "ad coelum" doctrine is not applicable when defining property rights. That fighting among these large landowners is very helpful to our cause of public access. If they successfully negate the ad coelum doctrine when fighting amongst themselves, the trespass claim for stepping over a landowner's property becomes null. Other paths are being explored.

I am glad to see this case come forward. Maybe this case will help weaken the legal doctrines currently applied by the courts to define how far the rights of a surface owner extends. I've been cautioned to place very little value in criminal case precedent, as it is low in legal priority and such precedent applies only to the jurisdiction that makes the final ruling and applies only to cases with the same facts.

A practical reality is that a win in this case could easily be negated by legislators. They could change/clarify the criminal definition of trespass in that state. The legislatures of the west could do what Montana has already done - introduce bills that set statutory minimum damages for civil trespass.

When I called Jeff and Buzz to talk about these topics, they assured me such legislative effort would never fly in Wyoming and I hope that is the case. No matter the outcome of this case, Montana legislators will be introducing a new bill to establish statutory minimum damages for civil trespass and likely a companion bill to redefine criminal trespass. I don't have much faith in many of the western legislatures to side with hunters and public landowners.

So long as legislatures are happy to act on behalf of billionaire ranch owners, the path that has lasting benefit and can withstand legislative circumvention is to overcome the "ad coelum" doctrine and its application to define that landowner property rights include the airspace that is crossed when corner crossing.

As I've said on podcasts, on my own forum, in interviews, I will not be corner crossing or promoting such until the legal doctrines that define property rights are changed or nullified, even though damages of civil trespass by crossing at the corners are zero. Since every attorney I've talked to agrees this is civil trespass, I'm not going to infringe on the rights currently deemed attributable to a landowner, no matter how insignificant some judge the infringement, no matter the pressure applied, the incentives to do so, no matter the rationale made for doing so, no matter how many elk or deer are on the other side.

What I will do is continue working toward solutions that I've been working on for a long time. I've made my decision upon learning of these legal doctrines, around 2014. From that point, I started working on other avenues that attorneys tell me might have lasting benefit, including the ability to thwart legislative attempts.

I know that my position to work on other solutions to gain access to these inaccessible lands is not popular. A lot of people have made that very clear in the last couple weeks.

None of that negates the fact that I support Jeff, Buzz, and others who work on this and other issues. I hope the case is solved in the name of the hunters.

Last I checked, it was not a crime for me to hire legal advice that leads me to a different path for solutions than the perspectives of people I have great respect for. The comments made by Buzz and Jeff on this thread are more polite than what they would tell me face-to-face. I appreciate that, with them, we can have frank conversation and if we come to different conclusions nobody gets their feelings hurt.
 
I've written many posts on my site about this topic. I've brought it up on many podcasts. I've stated these points in many interviews. Since this seems to now be about me and my positions, I'll reiterate what I've said many times, in many places, long before this case came about.

Corner crossing is civil trespass. Many attorneys, including this DA, consider it to also be criminal trespass, something governed by state statutes.

Those legal opinions are arrived at due to how property law is currently adjudicated in this country. The legal concept that drives the definition of what rights are owned by a property owner is the "ad coelum doctrine." I linked it so you can read what it means.
Bigfin, I applaud you for coming on here to address this issue as well as the work you have done on public access to public lands in the corner crossing issue as well as others. I think you are correct on ad coleum, but it seems like this is a state issue to some extent. My only question is how did the Navigable Waters law trump Ad Coleum or was it not even considered? Why are there different navigable water rules from state to state on not touching the ground under the stream and the ability to walk the water way to the high water mark? I am guessing each state has the ability to make a law with respect to corner crossing? In Virginia there are legal battles going back to kings grants that the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of and that those common english laws trumped navigable water laws because they were in place well before so they have shut down access to some prime trout fishing rivers.
 
Bigfin, I applaud you for coming on here to address this issue as well as the work you have done on public access to public lands in the corner crossing issue as well as others. I think you are correct on ad coleum, but it seems like this is a state issue to some extent. My only question is how did the Navigable Waters law trump Ad Coleum or was it not even considered? Why are there different navigable water rules from state to state on not touching the ground under the stream and the ability to walk the water way to the high water mark? I am guessing each state has the ability to make a law with respect to corner crossing? In Virginia there are legal battles going back to kings grants that the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of and that those common english laws trumped navigable water laws because they were in place well before so they have shut down access to some prime trout fishing rivers.
Water and navigable streams are usually covered clearly in state Constitutions or state statute. Water has been "worth fightin' over" for centuries, so it is far more defined and clarified than airspace.

Water and airspace, as much as we might want to make parallels, have almost no parallel in legal theories. My hope for parallels is one reason I first went to the firm that represented the public in Montana's Stream Access Lawsuit. I thought there would be equivalences that applied. They quickly explained to me that is not the case, as the Montana Constitution specifically addressed, and therefore resolved, the issues around navigable waters. With that, I'm oversimplifying a very complex topic.

As you mention, it is also my understanding that each state can make determination as to what constitutes criminal trespass, and if they want to, establish minimum damages for civil trespass.

Additionally, state legislatures and voters also could legislate or pass by referendum, clarification that ad coelum is vague, impractical, legal fiction, and therefore is not applicable in property laws of that state. If that happened the trespass issue related to corner crossing in that state goes away.
 
Some can do a little, some can do a lot. All can and should do all they can.

The current laws were made at a different time, under different circumstances, when the rules fit the needs of the day.

When the current lands were controlled by free grazers, there were different rules than there are now, the homesteaders required different rules and they worked together to change the rules that where practical and reasonable for the homesteaders. The homesteaders didn’t say, “the rules are the rules and we’ll have to live with them.” They didn’t sing kumbaya with each other, they didn’t all agree with each other, on every issue, but they put their individual differences aside and worked together to change the rules.

Much of the rules we are governed by today where developed by the homesteaders, to meet their needs, as those needs existed at that time. Over the decades changes have come agian, as changes came to the free grazers, when the homesteaders arrived. Over those decades the homesteaders evolved and they began to use the rules to add to their advantage. As wildlife business became a revenue producing opportunity, the owners of these same lands began to leverage any and all advantages they could, to grow their wildlife revenue. At the same time, a new group of land users began to demand the use of the land they owned, ie the public’s land. As this group of people’s demand for more land and more habitat to hunt and fish and recreate grew, desire for access to all their land grew as well.

Just as of the need for new rules by the homesteaders grew and eventually the free grazers rules had to be replaced, more practical, more just laws and rules have now got to be established to meet the needs of the owners of the public land.

So, it’s not easy and it’s not necessary kind to the old system but when the old system is no longer just and it’s harnful to the owners of the public land, existing laws have to be challenged and changes have to be made.

It’s either public land for multiple use or it’s not. If it is the public’s land and the private land owners (the homesteader posterity in actuality or by deed) are preventing access, it’s the same as when the homesteader took control, by rule of law, from the free grazer. The legislature and the judicial system must change the rules again.

Human nature is such that ag business will use the current system and associated rules and laws to favor their income, and they will do it and fight to keep it the way it currently is. They aren’t going to just roll over and give up. If the public want access to their land they will have to do what the current owners did, as homesteaders, decades ago, and that is....... get the rules changed.

It’s not to be mean, vindictive or to get even but to correct a system that made sense decades ago but no long works today.

Ask the Native America’s how they felt about the fur trappers and the miners, ask the free grarzers how they felt about the homesteaders ......... change sucks but nothing stays the same........

If it’s worth having, it’s worth fighting for because whom ever the system favors now is damn sure going to fight to keep it. If we don’t understand that you’re defeated before you ever open the gate.

Let them see your support, let them feel the weight of your commitment, it’s easier and quicker than writing a letter or calling your legislator, donate what you can afford today.
 
Last edited:
Water and navigable streams are usually covered clearly in state Constitutions or state statute. Water has been "worth fightin' over" for centuries, so it is far more defined and clarified than airspace.

Water and airspace, as much as we might want to make parallels, have almost no parallel in legal theories. My hope for parallels is one reason I first went to the firm that represented the public in Montana's Stream Access Lawsuit. I thought there would be equivalences that applied. They quickly explained to me that is not the case, as the Montana Constitution specifically addressed, and therefore resolved, the issues around navigable waters. With that, I'm oversimplifying a very complex topic.

As you mention, it is also my understanding that each state can make determination as to what constitutes criminal trespass, and if they want to, establish minimum damages for civil trespass.

Additionally, state legislatures and voters also could legislate or pass by referendum, clarification that ad coelum is vague, impractical, legal fiction, and therefore is not applicable in property laws of that state. If that happened the trespass issue related to corner crossing in that state goes away.
Floating navigable rivers in Wyoming is covered in case law, very different from Montana's Constitution. There is no real clarity as to why ad coelum is not enforced floating a river in Wyoming.

Just thought I would clarify.
 
Water and navigable streams are usually covered clearly in state Constitutions or state statute. Water has been "worth fightin' over" for centuries, so it is far more defined and clarified than airspace.

Water and airspace, as much as we might want to make parallels, have almost no parallel in legal theories. My hope for parallels is one reason I first went to the firm that represented the public in Montana's Stream Access Lawsuit. I thought there would be equivalences that applied. They quickly explained to me that is not the case, as the Montana Constitution specifically addressed, and therefore resolved, the issues around navigable waters. With that, I'm oversimplifying a very complex topic.

As you mention, it is also my understanding that each state can make determination as to what constitutes criminal trespass, and if they want to, establish minimum damages for civil trespass.

Additionally, state legislatures and voters also could legislate or pass by referendum, clarification that ad coelum is vague, impractical, legal fiction, and therefore is not applicable in property laws of that state. If that happened the trespass issue related to corner crossing in that state goes away.


Once upon a time there was a guy named Ted. Ted believed land belonged to the people. Ted's opinion was highly unpopular by the deep pocketed politically attached folks at the time.

Ted, was told about legalities. Ted was told the legislature would stop him.

Ted, did what was right regardless. And the legislature tried shutting him down. The politically connected exiled him.

Sure is good Ted didn't listen to the "experts"

I think about Ted, when I'm in Yellowstone, and don't see a huge manmade reservoir. A reservoir that was pushed. A reservoir supported by the politicians. I think about how a guy, who might not listen to the "experts" might pay a pretty high cost if he did what was right.


When there is a ruling, and the Rupert Murdochs of the world buy them some politicians to address it. Then WE will know which politicians need primary opponent's. That's how our system works.

My legislature in Utah is pretty pro selling off public land. I guess we better just let them. Sure don't want to upset the legislature, RIGHT?

Enjoy the expo. Maybe you can interview Sam, HUSH, Gritty, etc,etc,etc and discuss how much TR inspired you.

That's me being polite. My real thoughts include a head and a pile of construction words.
 
Once upon a time there was a guy named Ted. Ted believed land belonged to the people. Ted's opinion was highly unpopular by the deep pocketed politically attached folks at the time.

Ted, was told about legalities. Ted was told the legislature would stop him.

Ted, did what was right regardless. And the legislature tried shutting him down. The politically connected exiled him.

Sure is good Ted didn't listen to the "experts"

I think about Ted, when I'm in Yellowstone, and don't see a huge manmade reservoir. A reservoir that was pushed. A reservoir supported by the politicians. I think about how a guy, who might not listen to the "experts" might pay a pretty high cost if he did what was right.


When there is a ruling, and the Rupert Murdochs of the world buy them some politicians to address it. Then WE will know which politicians need primary opponent's. That's how our system works.

My legislature in Utah is pretty pro selling off public land. I guess we better just let them. Sure don't want to upset the legislature, RIGHT?

Enjoy the expo. Maybe you can interview Sam, HUSH, Gritty, etc,etc,etc and discuss how much TR inspired you.

That's me being polite. My real thoughts include a head and a pile of construction words.
This^^^

In the recent past, the desire by some to transfer federal lands to the states was a huge public land issue. All the conservation/sportsman groups and public land advocates banded together to fight this. There was much talk of law and the Constitution, but in the end, not to be deterred, public land advocates won(at least for the time being).

Some of those groups/people latched on to the public land access cause. More access to public land needed to be had. One group informed us all that in Wyoming, 3 million acres of our land is unaccessible. Now that group, and many others, remain silent in the effort to open hundreds of thousands of acres of that public land.

Yes, at this early stage I am reluctant to name names while there is still a chance to band everyone together for this issue. It seems everyday another comes to the cause, so more phone calls and discussion will be had. There's a hill out there worth dying on...
 
Another thing I can't understand is the FEAR that many are expressing on what MIGHT happen.

It wasn't that long ago that Montana fought for both stream access and access to state land. There were the same nervous nellies then too, saying we'd piss off the landowners on both.

Yeah, whatever...30 years down the road and the same landowners are still blustering and trying to repeal stream access and access to State lands. They won't get it done.

Wasn't that long ago that Montana hunters also banded together and did away with game farms via ballot initiative. Was even less long ago that Montana hunters banded together and did away with outfitter sponsored tags.

I'm of the opinion that win or lose this particular case, you have to start with getting the message out there. There has to be a catalyst that starts the reform. Jack Atcheson got riled up about being kicked off some state ground hunting pheasants...he didn't hide under the bed and pout about it. He took action, rallied the troops, and things changed. How many hundreds of thousands of hours of hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, camping, etc. have taken place on State land in Montana since then? Glad he didn't wait, I've been a grateful recipient of someone willing to tangle with the opposition.

There is no perfect time to take these issues on...unfortunately, I don't have 3 lifetimes to wait for perfection. Those playing the waiting game have had a couple decades to figure it out...and have done very little on the issue. Its well past time to solve it.
 
Another thing I can't understand is the FEAR that many are expressing on what MIGHT happen.

It wasn't that long ago that Montana fought for both stream access and access to state land. There were the same nervous nellies then too, saying we'd piss off the landowners on both.

Yeah, whatever...30 years down the road and the same landowners are still blustering and trying to repeal stream access and access to State lands. They won't get it done.

Wasn't that long ago that Montana hunters also banded together and did away with game farms via ballot initiative. Was even less long ago that Montana hunters banded together and did away with outfitter sponsored tags.

I'm of the opinion that win or lose this particular case, you have to start with getting the message out there. There has to be a catalyst that starts the reform. Jack Atcheson got riled up about being kicked off some state ground hunting pheasants...he didn't hide under the bed and pout about it. He took action, rallied the troops, and things changed. How many hundreds of thousands of hours of hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, camping, etc. have taken place on State land in Montana since then? Glad he didn't wait, I've been a grateful recipient of someone willing to tangle with the opposition.

There is no perfect time to take these issues on...unfortunately, I don't have 3 lifetimes to wait for perfection. Those playing the waiting game have had a couple decades to figure it out...and have done very little on the issue. Its well past time to solve it.


Yup.

The grey area doesn't help us, or the landowner.
 
What a real smart move is for a private landowner is ..is to buy a nice small piece of land that has many,many acres of ground behind it!! Landlocked!! You pay small money for the small WORTHLESS piece...(no water.no feed.etc.) then when hunting season rolls around and especially in high preference point units and with the competition between US hunters to feel the need to get the Biggest buck or bull and be willing to fork out big money to cross thru that guys gate!@? That's why you see some pretty worthless ground that is owned by some big ranches..the rancher gets to benefit from selling the animals that are locked behind his gates even when they are on public land...SO the confusion is that the land behind that locked gate is really NOT public...its the private playground for the man that owns small private piece...definately does not seem like a fair deal!!
 
Another thing I can't understand is the FEAR that many are expressing on what MIGHT happen.

It wasn't that long ago that Montana fought for both stream access and access to state land. There were the same nervous nellies then too, saying we'd piss off the landowners on both.

Yeah, whatever...30 years down the road and the same landowners are still blustering and trying to repeal stream access and access to State lands. They won't get it done.

Wasn't that long ago that Montana hunters also banded together and did away with game farms via ballot initiative. Was even less long ago that Montana hunters banded together and did away with outfitter sponsored tags.

I'm of the opinion that win or lose this particular case, you have to start with getting the message out there. There has to be a catalyst that starts the reform. Jack Atcheson got riled up about being kicked off some state ground hunting pheasants...he didn't hide under the bed and pout about it. He took action, rallied the troops, and things changed. How many hundreds of thousands of hours of hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, camping, etc. have taken place on State land in Montana since then? Glad he didn't wait, I've been a grateful recipient of someone willing to tangle with the opposition.

There is no perfect time to take these issues on...unfortunately, I don't have 3 lifetimes to wait for perfection. Those playing the waiting game have had a couple decades to figure it out...and have done very little on the issue. Its well past time to solve it.
I couldn’t agree more.

It starts with that catalyst you mentioned and follows with reaction/action, reaction/action and so on, until there is a definitive conclusion.

If the cause is just and the out come is “worth fighting for” changes will be made. If it’s not a just cause and it’s not a practical and reasonable agrument, the energy goes away and you loose your case, as it should be.

Any pragmatic person, with reasonable and honest intent can see what has happened here and can see that a new rule/law needs to be developed. It seems, with the gofundme participation there is a significant amount of energy to put this ball in motion. The catalyst.

If we as sportsman really want the current system to change, now is the time to put forth what ever energy you can muster. If this stutters and the energy isn’t sufficient, it will likely be another generation before another concerted effort can be realized.

If this is the right thing to do, and you really care, don’t expect someone else to carry all the rocks, do what you can, big or small, now, while the door lays open.
 
Last edited:
What a real smart move is for a private landowner is ..is to buy a nice small piece of land that has many,many acres of ground behind it!! Landlocked!! You pay small money for the small WORTHLESS piece...(no water.no feed.etc.) then when hunting season rolls around and especially in high preference point units and with the competition between US hunters to feel the need to get the Biggest buck or bull and be willing to fork out big money to cross thru that guys gate!@? That's why you see some pretty worthless ground that is owned by some big ranches..the rancher gets to benefit from selling the animals that are locked behind his gates even when they are on public land...SO the confusion is that the land behind that locked gate is really NOT public...its the private playground for the man that owns small private piece...definately does not seem like a fair deal!!
There hasn't been a small piece of land like that for 50+ years for sale for cheap in Wyoming or any other state I am aware of. Normally those are Huge ranches which control those landlocked parcels of public lands and they are VERY EXPENSIVE.
 
Many of the landowners on these vast checkard-board properties have mineral and gas rights, wind generator rights, and graze every other section of BLM for pennies. I wouldn't exactly say the land is worthless. Not a bad deal to buy every other section of land and have these rights plus private access to the entire large blocks of land-locked public land for hunting and fishing. There is good reason wealthy landowners have invested in these seemingly "worthless" landlocked properties.
 
I'm glad I opened up that discussion!! You get to buy 10,000 acres but you've got control of the PUBLICS other 20,000 plus acres behind lock gates...that you get to control AND make $ off of.
 
I'm glad I opened up that discussion!! You get to buy 10,000 acres but you've got control of the PUBLICS other 20,000 plus acres behind lock gates...that you get to control AND make $ off of.
Actually this thread is about corner crossing not land locked land. feel free to start another thread
 
I'm glad I opened up that discussion!! You get to buy 10,000 acres but you've got control of the PUBLICS other 20,000 plus acres behind lock gates...that you get to control AND make $ off of.
It‘s not very open as you are talking about a $20 Million purchase. It’s more of a Super rich playground. The said ranch in question has 22,000 deeded acres, but only 2700 acres of BLM lands locked up by corner hopping rules. As I said earlier, there hasn’t been cheap land available which controls large swaths of public lands for more than 50+ years and even then they were modest. Most of these are the Super rich who can afford such large sums. Notice the realtor giving false promises in the real estate prospectus. https://chickeringco.com/portfolio-item/elk-mountain/
 
Worrying about what could happen is for losers. fight and win. if you lose you're no worse off than you are now.

Rationally thinking the only excuse not to allow corner jumping would be if it was an impossible task. which it obviously is not.

The only argument that should be left is who pays to have a professional mark the corners. with today's technology that's a piece of cake.

As this case goes so will the challenges that come in the rest of the western states. I applaud the guys who took the stand and I have contributed to their fund.
 
That’s interesting. Hopefully they’ll have a similar view of the law in Wyoming or in higher court if we make it that far.
 
While trying to educate myself on how air flight is allowed in the context of the Ad Coelum Doctrine, but not using a ladder, I came accross this. Pages 11-13 I found very interesting related to this case. Definitely worth a read.

Did you mean footnotes 11-13? Apparently in Hannabolson v Sessions, a person was found to be trespassing when they waved their arm over a property boundary in a threatening manner. I'd be very interested to know if there has been any case law pertaining to momentarily passing through the air space over another's property, without malice, which has to be the only course the prosecutor can take with these four hunters in Carbon County.
 
Much of the law is based upon case precedent. but in this case the verdict may be the new case law all states refer to.

That's why this case is so important.
 
Did you mean footnotes 11-13? Apparently in Hannabolson v Sessions, a person was found to be trespassing when they waved their arm over a property boundary in a threatening manner. I'd be very interested to know if there has been any case law pertaining to momentarily passing through the air space over another's property, without malice, which has to be the only course the prosecutor can take with these four hunters in Carbon County.

I meant pages 11-13 of the actual PDF. There are 13 pages in the PDF.

BTW I'm on the side of the hunters and the public to access public lands. I'm simply trying to educate myself on the subject rather than post opinions that may be innaccurate in the context of the law.

I found these two sections interesting. It seems there has never really been a clear defintitive answer to the airspace question.

Page 11
"This formula was never taken literally, but was a figurative phrase to express the full and complete ownership of land and the right to whatever superjacent airspace was necessary or convenient to the enjoyment of the land. "In applying a rule of law, or construing a statute or constitutional provision, we cannot shut our eyes to common knowledge, the progress of civilization, or the experience of 24 Hinman et al v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F. (2d) 755 (1936). THE "AD COELUM" DOCTRINE IN AVIATION LAW 153 mankind. A literal construction of this formula will bring about an absurdity. The sky has no definite location. It is that which presents itself to the eye when looking upward; as we approach it, it recedes. * * * There can be no ownership of infinity, nor can equity prevent a supposed violation of an abstract conception."

Page 13
Actually, we may conclude that a man may own so much of the space above his land as he uses in connection with the enjoyment of the land. The limits are not fixed but vary with the needs of the owners. All the rest of the air belongs to the public. When we say a man owns the air to the heavens, then, it merely means that he is not to be limited in any use he may make of it in his enjoyment of the land. His title is paramount. But any use of the space by others which interferes with the enjoyment by the owner of the land would be a trespass for which the law gives him a remedy.
 
I meant pages 11-13 of the actual PDF. There are 13 pages in the PDF.

BTW I'm on the side of the hunters and the public to access public lands. I'm simply trying to educate myself on the subject rather than post opinions that may be innaccurate in the context of the law.

I found these two sections interesting. It seems there has never really been a clear defintitive answer to the airspace question.

Page 11
"This formula was never taken literally, but was a figurative phrase to express the full and complete ownership of land and the right to whatever superjacent airspace was necessary or convenient to the enjoyment of the land. "In applying a rule of law, or construing a statute or constitutional provision, we cannot shut our eyes to common knowledge, the progress of civilization, or the experience of 24 Hinman et al v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F. (2d) 755 (1936). THE "AD COELUM" DOCTRINE IN AVIATION LAW 153 mankind. A literal construction of this formula will bring about an absurdity. The sky has no definite location. It is that which presents itself to the eye when looking upward; as we approach it, it recedes. * * * There can be no ownership of infinity, nor can equity prevent a supposed violation of an abstract conception."

Page 13
Actually, we may conclude that a man may own so much of the space above his land as he uses in connection with the enjoyment of the land. The limits are not fixed but vary with the needs of the owners. All the rest of the air belongs to the public. When we say a man owns the air to the heavens, then, it merely means that he is not to be limited in any use he may make of it in his enjoyment of the land. His title is paramount. But any use of the space by others which interferes with the enjoyment by the owner of the land would be a trespass for which the law gives him a remedy.

Talk about being vague on page 13.......

EG: Landowner- "I enjoy using "the space" on that corner crossing when I fly my plane over it".
 
Angus does an excellent job and more substance with his reporting in this Wyofile report. The Colorado Law Professor has an interesting take on the case. https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-hunters-challenge-public-land-access-issue-in-court/
Seems like the best case for hunters would be some link/enforcement of the Unlawful Inclosure of Public Lands Act of 1885. Even if ad coelum was not ruled to be enforceable in a corner crossing, if the land owners are not forced to not block access, what is to stop them from building a 5 foot wide by 20 foot tall corner that would essentially block access anyway?
 
Seems like the best case for hunters would be some link/enforcement of the Unlawful Inclosure of Public Lands Act of 1885. Even if ad coelum was not ruled to be enforceable in a corner crossing, if the land owners are not forced to not block access, what is to stop them from building a 5 foot wide by 20 foot tall corner that would essentially block access anyway?
This is a whole other set of a can of worms. The act is vague and could be argued as it’s quite broad brushed.
CAC6BF1C-2294-444C-87C1-826F6DA14FB5.jpeg

1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands​

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: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

The landowners could erect a 10 foot tall concrete barricade only 3-4 feet wide with two slabs on the two owned sections just at the corners leaving a small 2 inch gap and keep it all on their owned lands side and effectively block us out if it is allowed. The language certainly says the Act does not apply to those who have right of title and also a small barricade is not a fence, so it could not be used by those who claim it is a wildlife barrier.
 
This is a whole other set of a can of worms. The act is vague and could be argued as it’s quite broad brushed.
View attachment 63546

The language certainly says the Act does not apply to those who have right of title and also a small barricade is not a fence, so it could not be used by those who claim it is a wildlife barrier.​

You're reading that wrong.
 
Seems like the best case for hunters would be some link/enforcement of the Unlawful Inclosure of Public Lands Act of 1885. Even if ad coelum was not ruled to be enforceable in a corner crossing, if the land owners are not forced to not block access, what is to stop them from building a 5 foot wide by 20 foot tall corner that would essentially block access anyway?
That would be nice of them to 100% show where the corner is
 
Everyone looks to see what is to their benefit. I’ve always believed those public lands should be open to all. The same with state lands in Colorado that are locked up by big Ag. But I might be better off going guided if I only get to hunt the good draw units once or twice in a lifetime
 
You Post This!

But You're one of The First That'll Hand Your Guns In!

GEEZUS!

Worrying about what could happen is for losers. fight and win. if you lose you're no worse off than you are now.

Rationally thinking the only excuse not to allow corner jumping would be if it was an impossible task. which it obviously is not.

The only argument that should be left is who pays to have a professional mark the corners. with today's technology that's a piece of cake.

As this case goes so will the challenges that come in the rest of the western states. I applaud the guys who took the stand and I have contributed to their fund.
 
I have often wondered why this issue can't be resolved via easements and eminent domain laws. Similar to how new public roadways are/were built.
 
Every time I read this thread, I keep thinking about the one corner that I know about and stood there wondering how I can get to it from less then the 10' away to access a couple thousand acres of public land,

As I continue to think thru it, it just kills me that this issue is happening for the simple reason that small amount of private land prevents the public from accessing. That spot is not the only one, but it's right next to a road with signs all over it telling everyone not to trespass. How the hell this was allowed to happen just blows my mind. SMH.
 
I have often wondered why this issue can't be resolved via easements and eminent domain laws. Similar to how new public roadways are/were built.
? just because I’m a foolish old dumb ass......... I’m guessing your not wondering why at all......

I would think there are a municipal library full of solutions that could resolve the problem.......... the issue doesn’t lack for solutions, it’s the lack of desire for a solution........
 
Last edited:
I have often wondered why this issue can't be resolved via easements and eminent domain laws. Similar to how new public roadways are/were built.
I think they could be but it won’t be cheap. It will likely cost 10K per corner for a permanent easement. These big ranches have a lot vested in this and won’t give up all those lands for free.
 
It’s not only the landowners that are vested in not allowing public access but also outfitters. The outfitters have exclusive rights to nonres hunting big game in public wilderness areas in wyo so that gives you a feel for what public hunters are up against with outfitters having current exclusive access to public land behind corners.

You want to bring up a whole other can of worms, how about outfitters and public wilderness areas in Wyo? Why stop at corner crossing? What if these same nonres test the waters for enforcing the guide in wilderness law? I’m sure legally it is totally different enforcement but it’s fairly close to the same thing as far as land-locked closed off public land to nonres!
 
It’s not only the landowners that are vested in not allowing public access but also outfitters. The outfitters have exclusive rights to nonres hunting big game in public wilderness areas in wyo so that gives you a feel for what public hunters are up against with outfitters having current exclusive access to public land behind corners.

You want to bring up a whole other can of worms, how about outfitters and public wilderness areas in Wyo? Why stop at corner crossing? What if these same nonres test the waters for enforcing the guide in wilderness law? I’m sure legally it is totally different enforcement but it’s fairly close to the same thing as far as land-locked closed off public land to nonres!
This thread isn’t about Wilderness areas. That one has already gone to the Wyoming Supreme Court in 1986. Many citations every year are issued for that and everyone does a good job of citizen enforcement and verification when we’re hunting up there. If you want that one changed start a new thread and try and get a legislative challenge as the Courts have already decided that one. https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1986/121527.html
 
I didn’t want to sabatoge this post, Just saying wilderness is public land that isn’t available for nonres to hunt without guides. If Wyo res we’re involved you would be on the nonres side of the wilderness issue! It’s all public land that isn’t available to the public to hunt!
 
You just have to learn how to hunt it. You rent the horses and buy the beer and you might just have a huge following of residents willing to take you up there, you just have to know how the game is played. Some get it and have a great hunt, others sit home and pout about it.
 
I think they could be but it won’t be cheap. It will likely cost 10K per corner for a permanent easement. These big ranches have a lot vested in this and won’t give up all those lands for free.
In eminent domain cases the value of the land and/or easement is typically determined by a judge or jury if the parties are unable to come to an agreement outside of litigation. Therefore the landowners wouldn't be able to put arbitrarily high prices on it.

When I dealt with a public utility for an easement on my land I was paid the value of the land the easement encompassed on a per acre basis.

This method of valuation would put a pedestrian corner crossing easement at near nothing considering a 6 foot wide easement centered on the corner would be 9 square feet, or .0205% of an acre. At say $10,000 an acre that would put the easement value at $2.05. Split between the two landowners of course.
 
Last edited:
If true, and I'm not questioning you, then he owes it to his base, to come out publically and address it.

As it stands now, he's in the shadows.

Despite all his talk about not being afraid to piss off anyone.

I'm shocked by his silence
He can't make money off it so he wants, no part of it
 
In eminent domain cases the value of the land and/or easement is typically determined by a judge or jury if the parties are unable to come to an agreement outside of litigation. Therefore the landowners wouldn't be able to put arbitrarily high prices on it.

When I dealt with a public utility for an easement on my land I was paid the value of the land the easement encompassed on a per acre basis.

This method of valuation would put a pedestrian corner crossing easement at near nothing considering a 6 foot wide easement centered on the corner would be 9 square feet, or .0205% of an acre. At say $10,000 an acre that would put the easement value at $2.05. Split between the two landowners of course.
If you think these rich billionaire landowners are going to settle for a $2.05 settlement to have a permanent in perpituity easement across their lands for a mere pittance, it ain’t going to happen. I think 10K a corner is on the extreme light side but at least it wouldn’t be a kick in the face to them like your $2.05 pittance. Easements are likely the solution but every case will likely be dynamic as an easement in Jackson Hole is certainly worth much more than the Red Desert. Judicial solutions aren’t the best long term fix.
 
Last edited:
If you think these rich billionaire landowners are going to settle for a $2.05 settlement to have a permanent in perpituity easement across their lands for a mere pittance, it ain’t going to happen. I think 10K a corner is on the extreme light side
And where exactly is this 10k suppose to come from?
 
If you think these rich billionaire landowners are going to settle for a $2.05 settlement to have a permanent in perpituity easement across their lands for a mere pittance, it ain’t going to happen. I think 10K a corner is on the extreme light side but at least it wouldn’t be a kick in the face to them like your $2.05 pittance. Easements are likely the solution but every case will likely be dynamic as an easement in Jackson Hole is certainly worth much more than the Red Desert. Judicial solutions aren’t the best long term fix.
Easements?
Paid for easements to the private land owner?
I have to pay for an easement to public ground?

Bull sh!t!

Do public land owners pay for easements to cross public land to get access to their private land?

Even suggesting we’ll pay private land owners for an easement is ultimately worse than what they are doing now by blocking our access. If you think landowner’s are going to be hard to deal with now, pay an easement now and see how they leverage that Pandora’s Box into a living hell.

When land owners pay the cost of roads, pavement, gravel, maintenance to cross BLM, USFS, State Lands to get to their property, then we can talk about corner crossing easements. Until then, hell no. Not $.02, not $2.09 or $250,000.00. Not a penny, never.

Never....... unless you want a lot worse problem than we already have.
 
Last edited:
Per the story that ran in the Trib recently, are their attorneys looking at moving their case to Federal Court as recommended by that law professor at CU? He made some pretty strong arguments about not letting the State of Wyoming decide this case...
 
Easements?
Paid for easements to the private land owner?
I have to pay for an easement to public ground?

Bull sh!t!

Do public land owners pay for easements to cross public land to get access to their private land?

Even suggesting we’ll pay private land owners for an easement is ultimately worse than what they are doing now by blocking our access. If you think landowner’s are going to be hard to deal with now, pay an easement now and see how they leverage that Pandora’s Box into a living hell.

When land owners pay the cost of roads, pavement, gravel, maintenance to cross BLM, USFS, State Lands to get to their property, then we can talk about corner crossing easements. Until then, hell no. Not $.02, not $2.09 or $250,000.00. Not a penny, never.

Never....... unless you want a lot worse problem than we already have.
It’s been going on for years. Your Ignorance doesn’t negate that, many of these large conservation groups are diligently negotiating and working with landowners with the largest parcels of landlocked public lands to try and gain access. It is painfully slow though. https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/ne...accessible-federal-and-state-lands-in-wyoming
 
It’s been going on for years. Your Ignorance doesn’t negate that, many of these large conservation groups are diligently negotiating and working with landowners with the largest parcels of landlocked public lands to try and gain access. It is painfully slow though. https://www.gohunt.com/read/news/ne...accessible-federal-and-state-lands-in-wyoming
Oh I know all about diligent negotiations. I’ve been involved in far too many of them, and I’m ashamed to say I have nightmares, both night and day over almost every damn one of them.

Why?

Because no matter what you believe will be a win win, for the negotiating parties, nearly every time turns into one side getting the sh!t kicked out of them..... for the inch they gave to get a deal agreed to. BECAUSE, everytime, the other side takes that agreement and over a period it of years, shove it so far up your ass, you can taste the shoe polish.

Never........ give them a cent for what you already have a right too. Never ever pay a bully for your lunch unless you want to pay him again and again. It’s the oldest tactic and most fundamental in the negotiating settlement book.

I’m not disputing your statement that it’s easement negotiations are already in motion, I stating that it’s wrong to pay them anything, under any circumstance or we’ll end up worse off than we are now. It happens damn neatly every freaking time and you if you don’t understand that, maybe a visit to your mirror might help you know who the ignorant one is. If it’s moving slow, thank you Lord, then there’s time to fix it, if you give a sh!t.
 
I’m not disputing your statement that it’s easement negotiations are already in motion, I stating that it’s wrong to pay them anything, under any circumstance or we’ll end up worse off than we are now.
Again……Men have been buying and trading land in Wyoming for a long long time. Your Ignorance of how land deals and negotiating access and easements which long predated this corner hopping case is apparent. If an Owner is willing to allow public access across a corner and it opens up 10,000 landlocked public lands thats a great public resource investment. We should run to the banks as fast as we can secure funds to get those types of agreements. It is all being prioritized and worked on by numerous federal, state, private and public organizations all seeking to gain public access and will be with or without your support. Every road, bridge, reservoir, WMA had public funds expended to purchase and gain access, that’s how our system works.
 
I rest my case...........and here we are with four people going before a judge over something that pervious failures have caused and apparently you think more negotiations will make it better or solve the problem for the public’s access.

It’s time the failed negotiations demand a legal solution be developed because what your describing hasn’t worked, if it had we wouldn’t be having this discussion and these guys wouldn’t be in court.
 
I rest my case...........and here we are with four people going before a judge over something that pervious failures have caused and apparently you think more negotiations will make it better or solve the problem for the public’s access.

It’s time the failed negotiations demand a legal solution be developed because what your describing hasn’t worked, if it had we wouldn’t be having this discussion and these guys wouldn’t be in court.
If you think this little circuit court case will be the end of this subject, your Ignorance shows no bounds, I rest my case………..
13DE38BC-6723-4F52-9678-1D5B521310E5.jpeg
 
If you think these rich billionaire landowners are going to settle for a $2.05 settlement to have a permanent in perpituity easement across their lands for a mere pittance, it ain’t going to happen. I think 10K a corner is on the extreme light side but at least it wouldn’t be a kick in the face to them like your $2.05 pittance. Easements are likely the solution but every case will likely be dynamic as an easement in Jackson Hole is certainly worth much more than the Red Desert. Judicial solutions aren’t the best long term fix.
Not every landowner is a billionaire. Even if they were, billionaires are subject to eminent domain laws just like everyone else. Just look at the Telluride valley floor case. The town was able to force the landowner to sell, a jury decided the price and if you think Neal Blue isn't a billionaire you are sadly mistaken. No judge or jury is going to award a landowner $10,000 for a 9 square foot easement.

I'm also not suggesting that every easement would be the same price. The calculation would be based on a variable per acre price, derived from current market value, but the results would still be quite low, even if you used $1,000,000 an acre.
 
. No judge or jury is going to award a landowner $10,000 for a 9 square foot easement.
Depends on the judge it has happened and it will happen again
Judges, CAN & have Been bought off, simple trurh is money talks
Look at our current political landscape if you need proof
 
When land owners pay the cost of roads, pavement, gravel, maintenance to cross BLM, USFS, State Lands to get to their property, then we can talk about corner crossing easements. Until then, hell no. Not $.02, not $2.09 or $250,000.00. Not a penny, never.
They do its, called TAXES,
 
You guys are dreaming if you think condemnation through eminent domain would be used to obtain hunter access.

What a wonderful socialist concept though, eh?
You may be right, eminent domain my not be a viable option. I don't see where anyone stated it was, I merely asked why it couldn't be used. Maybe you could answer that since you seem so sure?

Thus far we've just been discussing how the landowner payments would be valued if eminent domain were to be used.

I don't think any of the proposed solutions to this problem would be strictly for hunter access either. We are talking about access to public lands, period.

You should probably realize that the entire concept of public lands is a socialist one too.
 
Last edited:
Not every landowner is a billionaire. Even if they were, billionaires are subject to eminent domain laws just like everyone else. Just look at the Telluride valley floor case. The town was able to force the landowner to sell, a jury decided the price and if you think Neal Blue isn't a billionaire you are sadly mistaken. No judge or jury is going to award a landowner $10,000 for a 9 square foot easement.

I'm also not suggesting that every easement would be the same price. The calculation would be based on a variable per acre price, derived from current market value, but the results would still be quite low, even if you used $1,000,000 an acre.
You keep touting this 9 square foot easement. Besides your payment offer being a joke and laughable you likely wouldn’t get an agreement on a mere 3’ X 3’ at each corner pin. Many horses are wider than that. The North Dakota model would be considered the Cadillac exemplary model and premiere example to try and pattern after. They have a 33 feet wide easement along every section so it’s actually 66 feet wide but each section owner has an easement across 33 feet for the entire length of the section. Using your valuations of $10,000 per acre is 33X 5280=174240 feet so about 4 acres per side of each section or about $40K per side. Take into consideration we are dealing with not hundreds but thousands of sections across the West.
 
Last edited:
You may be right, eminent domain my not be a viable option. I don't see where anyone stated it was, I merely asked why it couldn't be used. Maybe you could answer that since you seem so sure?

Thus far we've just been discussing how the landowner payments would be valued if eminent domain were to be used.

I don't think any of the proposed solutions to this problem would be strictly for hunter access either. We are talking about access to public lands, period.

You should probably realize that the entire concept of public lands is a socialist one too.
My experience is in confiscation for highway systems. I’m not smart enough to explain all the details, but can say confidently that it’s a onerous and complicated process facilitated by herds of lawyers.

I don’t have an issue with natural resources being held in trust for our citizens. I start to bristle a little when someone’s property is confiscated “for the common good”.

Perhaps something can be learned from the epic fights over beach access?
 
Why would there ever need to be an easement along a complete property line when it’s only needed at the corner? I don’t even think the easement is needed for foot travel but I guess if you want to include horses it’s probably be needed.
 
Why would there ever need to be an easement along a complete property line when it’s only needed at the corner? I don’t even think the easement is needed for foot travel but I guess if you want to include horses it’s probably be needed.
A road. Not that most would ever have them but it allows public access if required and utility easements if required.
 
A road. Not that most would ever have them but it allows public access if required and utility easements if required.
Pipe dream never gonna, happen
At least not for public access.
Utity /power companies etc yes
But a, road just so hunters, can access public property good luck with that
 

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