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.Not to toss cold water.
But do you think there will "payback"?
As in landowners exiting access programs as an FU?
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.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"
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!
Read for yourself what he thinks. Buzz and I have both talked to him.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?Public Raises More Than $50,000 to Defend Hunters Ticketed for Corner Crossing in Wyoming
When four non-resident hunters were charged with criminal trespass for corner crossing in Wyoming, the public responded by raising funds.www.outdoorlife.com
Read for yourself what he thinks. Buzz and I have both talked to him.
You have contributed to the cause, correct?Public Raises More Than $50,000 to Defend Hunters Ticketed for Corner Crossing in Wyoming
When four non-resident hunters were charged with criminal trespass for corner crossing in Wyoming, the public responded by raising funds.www.outdoorlife.com
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.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.
He has stated before this happened that he wasn't I was also disappointed but not suprisedI 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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
This^^^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.
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.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.
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.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!!
Actually this thread is about corner crossing not land locked land. feel free to start another threadI'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/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.
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.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.
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.
Yeah, but they're not supposed to lie, steal and Boink porn stars either.Some of the ranchers I know are Christian. This should help if you are ever caught on their property because they are supposed to forgive those who trespass against them.
Great read. Thx for posting.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?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/
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.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?
You're reading that wrong.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.
That would be nice of them to 100% show where the corner isSeems 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
You might still have to contend with RIP.That would be nice of them to 100% show where the corner is
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.
? just because I’m a foolish old dumb ass......... I’m guessing your not wondering why at all......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.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.
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.htmlIt’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!
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.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.
He can't make money off it so he wants, no part of itIf 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
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.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.
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
Easements?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.
You want to play you gotta pay….. Obviously a combination of sportsmen donations, state and federal govt. funds and conservation groups. They are already prioritizing and negotiating with certain parcels which have the most to gain. https://www.trcp.org/unlocking-public-lands/And where exactly is this 10k suppose to come from?
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-wyomingEasements?
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.
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.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
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’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.
If you think this little circuit court case will be the end of this subject, your Ignorance shows no bounds, I rest my case………..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.
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.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.
Depends on the judge it has happened and it will happen again. No judge or jury is going to award a landowner $10,000 for a 9 square foot easement.
They do its, called TAXES,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.
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?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 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.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.
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.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.
A road. Not that most would ever have them but it allows public access if required and utility easements if required.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.
Pipe dream never gonna, happenA road. Not that most would ever have them but it allows public access if required and utility easements if required.
Why does a road have to go down a property line?A road. Not that most would ever have them but it allows public access if required and utility easements if required.
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.