Shouldn't Elk Mountain Ranch be held liable for unlawfully violating Hunting Activity?

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Tristate why don't you stop your bias opinions and wait and see how the case goes in Federal court. You might just get your opinions shot down and your rancher & outfitter friends get it stuck in them also.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Tristate why don't you stop your bias opinions and wait and see how the case goes in Federal court. You might just get your opinions shot down and your rancher & outfitter friends get it stuck in them also.
RELH
My point isn't to protect anyone Relh. My point is to actually fix this problem and everyone get on with their lives.

What happens in federal court just resolves an issue between a couple of parties and then we still have to deal with the shifting tides this way or that that everyone likes to call precedent.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Tristate are you really that dense and ignorant. If a federal court rules that the hunters had a legal right to jump corners. That along opens all those corners in every state to a legal trespass by hunters. that in it self will open millions of acres to hunters that have been blocked in the past.
The only other way to open the public land is to force the private land owners to grant an easement though their property and that is violating the rights of land owners.

RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Tristate are you really that dense and ignorant. If a federal court rules that the hunters had a legal right to jump corners. That along opens all those corners in every state to a legal trespass by hunters. that in it self will open millions of acres to hunters that have been blocked in the past.
The only other way to open the public land is to force the private land owners to grant an easement though their property and that is violating the rights of land owners.

RELH
Did Roe vs Wade settle the abortion debate??????

No.

You get a different set of attorneys in there with a different judge and blaaaaaaaam, you are right back in a different corner. Don't tell me I'm ignorant when I've seen it.

I want you to go write an actual law that can't be left up to a judge to interpret anything. Make sure it's constitutional and set it in stone. It's a lot harder to rewrite law than it is to go judge shopping.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
All right wise one, tell us how you would solve the problem and it will stand the test for being legal.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
The only other way to open the public land is to force the private land owners to grant an easement though their property and that is violating the rights of land owners.

RELH
And yes! It doesn't violate rights of landowners. That's exactly what we have here.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Bull$hit. It will not stand up to the requirements needed for eminent domain seizure of land for a easement. Must be for the benefit of the majority of the public. Hunters are a small segment of the general population.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
We do it here in Texas when it doesn't benefit more than a single person. So yes it will stand up if it benefits tens of thousands of hunters. Plus once it's a separate piece of law it's not just riding on imenent domain.

Why do you not believe we have been doing this for ages here AND IT WORKS?
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
We do it here in Texas when it doesn't benefit more than a single person. So yes it will stand up if it benefits tens of thousands of hunters. Plus once it's a separate piece of law it's not just riding on imenent domain.

Why do you not believe we have been doing this for ages here AND IT WORKS?
Look, there have been dozens of attorneys looking at this case very closely. They all agree that the current path forward that we're taking with the civil case is the way to go. That includes law professors, retired law professors, and more attorneys than I care to list.

If you want to argue with them, be my guest. I'm inclined to believe what they have to say over some Texas taxidermist that studies deer ears. You're out of your depth.

Don't forget brainiac, it was Eshelman that filed the civil case, you don't think the Missouri-4 should defend themselves? What choice do they have? You may have a case if from the get-go it was hunters wanting to change the law. Hunters didn't file the charges, Eshelman did.

It was also the Carbon County Attorney that bullied the Sheriff into scratching criminal trespass tickets.

The way things work in the U.S. is that we get our day in court, a fundamental constitutional right.

Eshelman made a serious mistake, he got piss poor legal advice and he's going to get swatted for it. There's a reason the stock growers and other private land groups are all worked up about this civil case.

There's also plenty of action that's going to happen in the Wyoming legislature this year regarding this case.

You have no clue about what's going on, yet run your mouth like you've been involved for the last year.

You have one mouth and 2 ears, yet seem incapable of using them in the right ratio.

In the meantime:

9e07de09445ec1fe93940b7ff341ff3b.jpg
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Latest, wonder why they're contacting me and not you?

Myself and other BHA board members have been interviewed for articles, radio, TV, etc. throughout the case dozen of times.


Not a mention of a taxidermist from Texas...even though you're a legend in your own mind, legal "scholar", and access "expert".
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
I'm not saying they shouldn't defend themselves. I'm saying this isn't the magic bullet you pray for.

This is how lawyers make MONEY. Sure they make sure and stroke your ego Buzz. You're the most important person in Wyoming and MM. Feel that lumpy thing in the corner of your mouth. THATS THE HOOK!🤣
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
I'm not saying they shouldn't defend themselves. I'm saying this isn't the magic bullet you pray for.

This is how lawyers make MONEY. Sure they make sure and stroke your ego Buzz. You're the most important person in Wyoming and MM. Feel that lumpy thing in the corner of your mouth. THATS THE HOOK!🤣
Opinions vary...and your opinion means zip to me and this case.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
The public land in Texas must not be that valuable for hunting or anything else since none of those private land owners has not sued over their 4th. amendment rights being violated for unlawful seizure of property for the purpose of an easement to public property.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
The public land in Texas must not be that valuable for hunting or anything else since none of those private land owners has not sued over their 4th. amendment rights being violated for unlawful seizure of property for the purpose of an easement to public property.
RELH
If someone is " seizing" your land why worry about the value of land you don't own? You're not making much sense with this last post.

Who are they going to sue?
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
That is my point. The public land in Texas is not worth suing over like the public land in other states that the private property owners are up in arms about due to it's value to them on grazing and paid hunting rights.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
That is my point. The public land in Texas is not worth suing over like the public land in other states that the private property owners are up in arms about due to it's value to them on grazing and paid hunting rights.
RELH
You're not making any sense.

Who would they sue?
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
It's mildly entertaining making you look foolish...and so easy it's almost not fair.
Well you're in luck Buzz. I don't make you look foolish. You're just foolish.

Keep spending that money paying the lawyers. Must be other people's money.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Tristate, you are so dense that you do not consider how we laugh at your asinine opinions and we laugh even more when we bait you into giving another asinine opinion. P.T. Barnum was right about a fool being born every minute.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
As asinine as telling someone from the state with the largest hunting industry and beef industry in the US that their public land isn't worth anything.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Another asinine reply from our own wise one. Tristate are you forgetting that about 90% of your state hunting is done on private land that you pay to hunt. Very little is done on your public land.
As for your beef industry, they must have figured out to charge the customer for that beef as much as your private land owners charge hunters to hunt or trespass on their property.
Like I said, if that public land you have left over was worth a damn, your ranchers would have figured out a way to tie it up and exploit it's value.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Another asinine reply from our own wise one. Tristate are you forgetting that about 90% of your state hunting is done on private land that you pay to hunt. Very little is done on your public land.
As for your beef industry, they must have figured out to charge the customer for that beef as much as your private land owners charge hunters to hunt or trespass on their property.
Like I said, if that public land you have left over was worth a damn, your ranchers would have figured out a way to tie it up and exploit it's value.
RELH
The basis of your logic is CYNICISM.

That's all you have. "Tristate is an idiot because ranchers are evil"????????

You can't be this foolish, bigoted, or emotional.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,293
My point isn't to protect anyone Relh. My point is to actually fix this problem and everyone get on with their lives.

What happens in federal court just resolves an issue between a couple of parties and then we still have to deal with the shifting tides this way or that that everyone likes to call precedent.

Um, no.

What happens in Federal court with Wyoming sets precedent for the rest of the country. Or more importantly, Mont, Id, Ut, Co, Nv, Az, Nm, where this same land locking strategy is employed.

Had Texas "solved" a problem, Wyoming would be able to use the Texas precedent. Whatever you think you "solved" isn't being used in court, in Wyoming, meaning it obviously doesn't apply, or didn't "solve" anything.

No one is talking about accessing state parks, or wildlife management areas, which are the bulk, if not all of Texas public land. We are talking about random pieces of acreage found throughout the Rockies.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
How is it impossible for people on this sight to imagine a right not handed to them by a judgement?


Hossblur,

It is Texas state law. Not a federal court judgement. And it covers every single square inch of land within the state. No matter the type. Everything.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814

Here is a summary of a judgement protecting necessity easement in Texas. I believe there are links for and reference to law.
 

DaveD

Member
Messages
50

Here is a summary of a judgement protecting necessity easement in Texas. I believe there are links for and reference to law.
I'm fairly new to the site but have some local knowledge of what happened. Here are a few things I believe to be fact;

1- Most of what Buzz has stated is correct regarding the details of the incident and how it was handled by LEOs. He may be 100% correct on everything but some details I can't confirm.

2- You like to hear yourself talk even though most would prefer you didn't.

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish other than ruffle feathers of people that are actually trying to do something?
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088

Here is a summary of a judgement protecting necessity easement in Texas. I believe there are links for and reference to law.
Had a long discussion with an attorney from Texas very early in the corner crossing case about this very thing.

He was a super good guy and very smart.

Doesn't apply to Wyoming or most any other Western State in particular to federal land.

North Dakota also established ROW's on their section lines, but again, that's an outlier and is meaningless to other Western States.

All the attorneys, including the one from Texas that contacted me, all agree that the Federal civil case is the way to go.

A decision at the Federal level makes anything a State can do, one way or the other in regard to corner crossing, meaningless for access to Federal Lands. Simply put, they can pass all the State access laws they want making corner crossing illegal and it means ZIP to a precedent setting Federal case. You know the pesky Supremacy Clause of our Constitution and all that.

You can crow all you want about Texas, but state law only applies to one state. That's not what we're after, for more than obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Had a long discussion with an attorney from Texas very early in the corner crossing case about this very thing.

He was a super good guy and very smart.

Doesn't apply to Wyoming or most any other Western State in particular to federal land.

North Dakota also established ROW's on their section lines, but again, that's an outlier and is meaningless to other Western States.

All the attorneys, including the one from Texas that contacted me, all agree that the Federal civil case is the way to go.

A decision at the Federal level makes anything a State can do, one way or the other in regard to corner crossing, meaningless for access to Federal Lands. Simply put, they can pass all the State access laws they want making corner crossing illegal and it means ZIP to a precedent setting Federal case. You know the pesky Supremacy Clause of our Constitution and all that.

You can crow all you want about Texas, but state law only applies to one state. That's not what we're after, for more than obvious reasons.
Sweet bajeebus Buzz,

I've been telling you this entire time you don't have it in Wyoming.

But it is the way you need to go if you want to settle this in finality. The way you are going now the attorneys get richer and bat that ball back and forth.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Sweet bajeebus Buzz,

I've been telling you this entire time you don't have it in Wyoming.

But it is the way you need to go if you want to settle this in finality. The way you are going now the attorneys get richer and bat that ball back and forth.
No, its not the way to go. You understand less about the politics of the West than you do this civil case.

Every single attorney working this case will disagree with you.

If you want to argue with them, have at it.

They're smarter than you and understand the law better than you. They probably wouldn't argue with you about corn flingers, deer ears, and hide paste. But you want to argue with them about the law? Hilarious.

You're also failing to remember, Eshelman filed the lawsuit and truly is the gift that keeps on giving for public access to Federal Lands.

Like I said, if you have a better idea, get after it, otherwise nobody cares about you or Texas.

Take out your notepad, sit back, and watch how its done.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Yes. Every single attorney profiting off of this lawsuit have said you are doing the right thing.

Why don't you tell us why they said don't pass a state law guaranteeing access?
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Yes. Every single attorney profiting off of this lawsuit have said you are doing the right thing.

Why don't you tell us why they said don't pass a state law guaranteeing access?
Wrong again and learn to read.

There are law professors and a few dozen attorneys working this case pro bono on behalf of the Missouri-4 and public access.

Ask yourself why that would be?

Why don't you tell us why you don't understand the politics of States outside of Texas?

Oh, and there's ONE attorney being paid for the civil case and is worth every penny.

For the record, who says nobody is working on passing a State Law in Wyoming to make corner crossing legal?

You just don't know what you don't know...as per usual and always.
 
Last edited:

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
All that to dodge a question. Back in the liquor cabinet again I guess.

I don't know who says nobody is working on a state law for Wyoming. I didn't. I just told you that's how you actually fix this for good and you got butt hurt.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
All that to dodge a question. Back in the liquor cabinet again I guess.

I don't know who says nobody is working on a state law for Wyoming. I didn't. I just told you that's how you actually fix this for good and you got butt hurt.
I never dodged a single question and you never answer one. Why is that?

So who is it working on legislation in Wyoming to make corner crossing legal?

You're an expert and all...you surely must know.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
I never dodged a single question and you never answer one. Why is that?

So who is it working on legislation in Wyoming to make corner crossing legal?

You're an expert and all...you surely must know.
Hell if I know. I just know I didn't say nobody was working on it.
 

customweld

Active Member
Messages
544
Very seldom do I agree with Buzz. He is right on this one and I hope for a favorable outcome. You can bet legislators are watching this closely and probably have drafts wrote up to try and counter the outcome, should it go our way.
 

Hawkeye

Very Active Member
Messages
2,787
Ah, some things never change - like Tristate lecturing the entire forum on legal issues that he knows nothing about.

Tri, go back to mounting javelinas and out of the deep end of the pool.

Hawkeye
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Ah, some things never change - like Tristate lecturing the entire forum on legal issues that he knows nothing about.

Tri, go back to mounting javelinas and out of the deep end of the pool.

Hawkeye
One more lemming showing up with the brilliant idea of "Tristate bad".

You do realize this entire thread has an op, then my question. Then Buzz got offended and claimed he had the zapruder film of hunter harassment. Then he got offended when it ended up being a bigger let down than porn for the blind. Somewhere in his anger he latched onto the idea that I said things I never did. Then about 5 separate guys, including you Hawkeye, and some other fake Texan that claims to ignore me, decided to make this about me.

Only one person asked me straight questions and I attempted to give him the best answers I could. Yall could learn a lot from him.
 
Last edited:

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
645
Sorry for the vector:

I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.

What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Sorry for the vector:

I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.

What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
That's part of the issue here. There are two different topics involved with this case. One is a civil case which if lost some people believe it will open up public land all over the US.

Then there is another investigation which is a criminal investigation into hunter harassment.

Both have been somewhat muddled together in these threads.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Sorry for the vector:

I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.

What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
Do some research into the case, it's all been explained in various articles wyofile and others.
 

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
645
I did read all the articles pointed to (not the Texas ones- I don't think they are relevant). I'm still not clear on how the civil case will impact anything. I get that folks want precedent set- but does a civil case do anything to set precedent? Or is there a separate decision that will be made in another court that will then impact the civil case?

The articles are vague at best on the point.
 

Southpawshooter

Active Member
Messages
173
I did read all the articles pointed to (not the Texas ones- I don't think they are relevant). I'm still not clear on how the civil case will impact anything. I get that folks want precedent set- but does a civil case do anything to set precedent? Or is there a separate decision that will be made in another court that will then impact the civil case?

The articles are vague at best on the point.
A ruling will set a precedent in the 10th Circuit (Rocky Mtn Region). The ruling will address air rights. The case will be appealed to the 10th Circuit appellate court. Thus, in the end, we should have very clear legal language defining if people can access public land via corner jumping in the Rocky Mtn Region. A favorable ruling in federal court will have significant implications on any state law in the future. I am sure there are better legal minds on here that could explain it better.
 

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
645
A ruling will set a precedent in the 10th Circuit (Rocky Mtn Region). The ruling will address air rights. The case will be appealed to the 10th Circuit appellate court. Thus, in the end, we should have very clear legal language defining if people can access public land via corner jumping in the Rocky Mtn Region. A favorable ruling in federal court will have significant implications on any state law in the future. I am sure there are better legal minds on here that could explain it better.
Nice- got it- thanks!
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
8,293
Ah, some things never change - like Tristate lecturing the entire forum on legal issues that he knows nothing about.

Tri, go back to mounting javelinas and out of the deep end of the pool.

Hawkeye


Wow!!

Look who is still vertical😁
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Nice- got it- thanks!
Going a step further the Federal Judge has approved the UIA as applicable to the case.

If the judge rules that not only is a civil case seeking 7 million in "damages" from bruised airspace (the M-4 never touched private property) absurd, which it is, but that Eshelman and/or his agents illegally posted public land...that's legal precedent as well.

Steve Grende admitted in the criminal trial that they put t-posts in the ground and hung a chain with a lock in between them to keep the public from corner crossing. Keeping the public from accessing public lands by stepping from piece of public land to another piece of public land.

Interestingly enough, in his testimony he also said that he had removed the locks and chain prior to the trial. I wonder why that is? Clear violation of the UIA possibly? I think so.

Once you have Federal precedent that a landowner can't violate our rights to access federal land under the UIA, its game over. The property rights groups, angry state legislature, etc. can pass all the state laws about corner crossing and it simply doesn't matter.

There's more too, but we've been advised to not share much beyond what's been reported in the papers.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Sorry for the vector:

I clearly understand how the civil lawsuit will settle the matter between the Missouri gents and the evil rancher dude. Pretty obvious.

What escapes me is how the civil lawsuit will affect anyone else. Civil matters don't change or directly influence laws- other than the publicity and subsequent energy that might provide. Is that "energy" what folks are hanging their hats on? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how civil cases can impact criminal law?
If you're really interested...

 

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
645
Good podcast. As you stated, the nuisance aspect and bruised air discussions were interesting.

Funny- I can't remember which lawyer- but they supported the thought of BLM or state of Wyoming using condemnation/easements. Now that was interesting. They suggested that if the BLM/State started going down that road of condemning (say a 10 ft path), that most landowners would opt to agree for a simple easement instead to have better control of access (no trucks, etc)- ending up with a very low cost solution to the problem.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Good podcast. As you stated, the nuisance aspect and bruised air discussions were interesting.

Funny- I can't remember which lawyer- but they supported the thought of BLM or state of Wyoming using condemnation/easements. Now that was interesting. They suggested that if the BLM/State started going down that road of condemning (say a 10 ft path), that most landowners would opt to agree for a simple easement instead to have better control of access (no trucks, etc)- ending up with a very low cost solution to the problem.
Hmmmmmmmm.......

I'm not a lawyer but........
 

HikeHunt61

Active Member
Messages
645
It will be good if the Missouri 4 wins the civil case, and in the process a precedent is set that bruising the air over their 2 feet of corner does not constitute a trespass.

Again, what my concern is, the precedent is all well and good, but does not keep a sheriff from charging someone with trespass in the very next case of a hunter crossing a corner. Yes, the legal precedent will aid the hunter’s lawyer in his defense. But let’s say I'm wrong about that, and the legal precedent somehow translates itself to being applicable to all laws/boundaries etc in question, and that sheriffs in every county everywhere know about the precedent and don’t press charges. The UIA precedent is based (according to the very smart lawyers) on the landowner not USING that airspace, thus having no right to stop others. Fast forward then. Pretend I’m a rich, spoiled brat with more money than water. I decide that the best place for my shed(s) to house my ranch equipment is right on those corners. I build my sheds 20’ tall, because I like two floors to reduce footprint on my beautiful ranch. Since I was willing to spend $50K on lawyer fees, that $20K shed is a bargain. Gee, as a hunter, I now need a pretty whopping big ladder to cross that “used” airspace into “unused” airspace. Sure, somebody might sue the landowners for nuisance use of their land. And gee, they MIGHT even win that case. But then the landowner comes up with another corner case (see what I did there😊). And worse, EACH case will have to be litigated.

What I fear is we are hanging our hats on lawyers, rather than laws or documented right of way via ownership or easement.

“Game over” would be that the legal description of the area in question is no longer in question at all. An easement or ownership is the only actual solution I’ve heard or read about. I hope our smart lawyers know something they aren’t telling us!
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
It will be good if the Missouri 4 wins the civil case, and in the process a precedent is set that bruising the air over their 2 feet of corner does not constitute a trespass.

Again, what my concern is, the precedent is all well and good, but does not keep a sheriff from charging someone with trespass in the very next case of a hunter crossing a corner. Yes, the legal precedent will aid the hunter’s lawyer in his defense. But let’s say I'm wrong about that, and the legal precedent somehow translates itself to being applicable to all laws/boundaries etc in question, and that sheriffs in every county everywhere know about the precedent and don’t press charges. The UIA precedent is based (according to the very smart lawyers) on the landowner not USING that airspace, thus having no right to stop others. Fast forward then. Pretend I’m a rich, spoiled brat with more money than water. I decide that the best place for my shed(s) to house my ranch equipment is right on those corners. I build my sheds 20’ tall, because I like two floors to reduce footprint on my beautiful ranch. Since I was willing to spend $50K on lawyer fees, that $20K shed is a bargain. Gee, as a hunter, I now need a pretty whopping big ladder to cross that “used” airspace into “unused” airspace. Sure, somebody might sue the landowners for nuisance use of their land. And gee, they MIGHT even win that case. But then the landowner comes up with another corner case (see what I did there😊). And worse, EACH case will have to be litigated.

What I fear is we are hanging our hats on lawyers, rather than laws or documented right of way via ownership or easement.

“Game over” would be that the legal description of the area in question is no longer in question at all. An easement or ownership is the only actual solution I’ve heard or read about. I hope our smart lawyers know something they aren’t telling us!
Nope, you cant build on property lines for one (county and state laws regarding off-sets) and secondly, it would be impeding the right to access via the UIA. Go look at the case law on the UIA, it simply involved fences. Fences that had to be removed under the UIA. There is also significance in the lease agreements with the BLM that ranches sign. You can look into those as well.

Plus, under Wyoming law, the airspace at the corner is "shared by the SEVERAL owners". That law was directly cited from Judge Stipe in the criminal trial in regard to airspace.

Meaning that putting a building on that corner would be impeding the ability of the "several owners" to utilize their access and airspace rights. Clear violation of the UIA, county and state laws/regulations, and also their BLM lease agreements.

What you're proposing will not fly.

And yes, it does keep a county sheriff from issuing a ticket if its determined by a federal judge that stepping from one piece of federal public land to another piece of public land is not trespassing. No county attorney will touch that case with a ten foot pole, Supremacy clause is a real thing, and they know that.

No county attorney in Wyoming will touch a corner crossing right now after the paddling Mayfield-Davis took. Let alone if a Federal precedent is set.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Got it. Ya, let's hope for a successful result, and that the precedent keeps sheriffs and DAs from pressing charges.
Sheriffs and County attorneys are elected positions as Mayfield-Davis learned the hard way.

She didn't even file to run again, wonder why?

If the federal case goes the right way, I'm not one bit concerned about a Sheriff or County Attorney, they won't have a leg to stand on in.

Only concern then would be crossing a corner with a piece of state ground involved. Different deal there since State lands are not public land.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
What I fear is we are hanging our hats on lawyers, rather than laws or documented right of way via ownership or easement.
That's exactly what is happening.

Then some other incident 5 years in the future will happen and they'll find some other federal case of Charlie the goat vs state of Florida from 1926 that set precedent in some way and they'll go judge shopping and you'll all be right back at square one.

Buzz is no different than all the politicians that told you for 5 decades Roe vs Wade was settled law.

When you are betting on "precedent " its never settled. It's just a for sure money maker for attorneys.
 

Gator

Long Time Member
Messages
17,795
SS Prayer is aways good to thank the all Mighty.
I see you are on the sex deal again are you Gay. Sure sounds like it.
I wouldn't judge ya if you're batting for the other side.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Well looks like the idiot from Texas that isn't attorney might have actually nailed this in post 3.
No you didn't. Doesn't mean anything in regard to the civil case.

It's ok tri, you just don't understand the issue. It's not your fault, you just have a habit of commenting on things you aren't involved with or understand.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
No you didn't. Doesn't mean anything in regard to the civil case.

It's ok tri, you just don't understand the issue. It's not your fault, you just have a habit of commenting on things you aren't involved with or understand.
I'm not talking about the civil case. This was the harassment thread. Try to keep your cases and threads straight. That's been your problem from step one. You haven't been able to keep anything organized in your mind and then you start accusing me of things I never said.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
I'm not talking about the civil case. This was the harassment thread. Try to keep your cases and threads straight. That's been your problem from step one. You haven't been able to keep anything organized in your mind and then you start accusing me of things I never said.
Did you read the article?

The US attorney made an outfitter take down a gate and no trespassing sign. In other words that ended the harassment that the outfitter was creating with access.

That's a win for public land hunters, and public access.

We'll see what happens on the rest of his complaint.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Did you read the article?

The US attorney made an outfitter take down a gate and no trespassing sign. In other words that ended the harassment that the outfitter was creating with access.

That's a win for public land hunters, and public access.

We'll see what happens on the rest of his complaint.
That's not what the op was about nor was it what I was commenting about in post #3. It isn't what I commented about in post #183. Your all over road and off the res.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
5,088
Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
There is a state law here regarding hunter harassment. A handful of people have been charged, but there is a reluctance by GF to issue the citations.

In the case regarding the M-4, the County Attorney refused to file the charges, even though there was ample evidence.

Also one of the several reasons that she's not running for re-election.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
So you are agreeing with my post #3.🤦‍♂️

Unbelievable. You are now so dead set on disagreeing with me you are actually agreeing with me.

Go read the op and post #3.🙄
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Tristate you are so full of yourself that it boogles the mind. Get a life and go back to your taxi work. That may be one thing you can get right. But I would not take your word on that.
I believe after this is settled in court, the American hunter will be the ones to benefit from the court decision and the outfitters and big landlocking ranchers will take it in the shorts. They went to far on this incident and now it is getting out of the Wyoming state courts that were bias.
RELH
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
7,814
Tristate you are so full of yourself that it boogles the mind. Get a life and go back to your taxi work. That may be one thing you can get right. But I would not take your word on that.
I believe after this is settled in court, the American hunter will be the ones to benefit from the court decision and the outfitters and big landlocking ranchers will take it in the shorts. They went to far on this incident and now it is getting out of the Wyoming state courts that were bias.
RELH
Yep. Nobody likes hearing I told you so.

Especially when I told you so.
 

accumark

Member
Messages
99
SS Prayer is aways good to thank the all Mighty.
I see you are on the sex deal again are you Gay. Sure sounds like it.
I wouldn't judge ya if you're batting for the other side.
Not a doubt in my mind that SS takes the pipe. Dude is more gay than the rainbow flag he flies.
 

Savage110

Active Member
Messages
248
Tristate I am unaware of the feds having any law dealing with harassment of hunters. That law is usually left to the individual states under their fish & game codes.
The last I heard Wyoming does have a harassment law on the books but you are not going to get the county sheriff or D.A. to charge it due to them being in the pocket book of the big ranches and outfitters where their campaign money comes from.
The only thing you nailed was your left thumb when trying to hit the nail head.
RELH
Could the hunters have a civil case for harassment if the county revenuers won’t charge The ranch criminally? Seems like some crafty lawyer could find a civil code that was violated.
 

RELH

Long Time Member
Messages
17,327
Those out of state hunters just may have a hefty law suit on the ranch for harassment. If it can be shown that the ranch owner or foreman did call the D.A. to pressure her into a false criminal arrest for trespass. That would help in winning the law suit and getting a large settlement. They could pay off their attorney fees for winning the trespass charges and go back home with money in their pocket. Just do not hire a Texas lawyer.
RELH
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom