Trophy bull and a trespass charge

[KenLee]

In some states I think the public would get something like a prescriptive easement and be allowed to access it.

Most states you would for private land. You could for public if you sued as party in interest taxpayer and can find where landlocked parcel was cut from and sold out of the now dominant blocking parcel of land.

 

[KenLee]

No one is saying the landowners own the wildlife. The only comments I saw were saying that he was managing access as if he owned the wildlife, which is a very different thing.

And the notion that you can have private-locked public land is crazy.

State attorneys are too lazy to sue for access.

 

[LongWayAround]

In some states I think the public would get something like a prescriptive easement and be allowed to access it.

There would have to be frequent and long-term use of an access to argue that.

 

[Chris in TN]

Furthermore, “land locked” public land should simply not exist. If taxpayers are helping fund that land, they ought to have access. Period.

Don't punish the ranchers for scenarios they didn't create. I agree that landlocked public lands shouldn't exist. That was a monumental mistake, made by self-dealing politicians back in the day, IMO.

The proper way to deal with it is to do land-swaps until government entities no long own any property that is landlocked. Eliminate landlocked parcels and eliminate corner-crossing at the same time.

 

[KenLee]

There would have to be frequent and long-term use of an access to argue that.

Implied easement by necessity is the term that should be argued. Go back in chain of title to find where that parcel was cut out and sold off. You can't sell a land locked parcel without giving an easement

 

[Billy Goat]

I see this thread going well.....


I assume this was BLM land?

Not National Forest?

 

[KenLee]

Don't punish the ranchers for scenarios they didn't create. I agree that landlocked public lands shouldn't exist. That was a monumental mistake, made by self-dealing politicians back in the day, IMO.

The proper way to deal with it is to do land-swaps until government entities no long own any property that is landlocked. Eliminate landlocked parcels and eliminate corner-crossing at the same time.

Or the attorney general for the state or federal district grow some balls???

 

[3forks]

The proper way to deal with it is to do land-swaps until government entities no long own any property that is landlocked. Eliminate landlocked parcels and eliminate corner-crossing at the same time.

From what I’ve seen here in Colorado and Montana, the public usually gets the shaft on a land swap deal. In fact, there’s been numerous land swaps that have occurred in which the private land owner basically extorted the state or federal government into swapping.

 

[wind gypsy]

I see this thread going well.....


I assume this was BLM land?

Not National Forest?

State land which looks largely to be managed for oil/gas and ranching revenue so the notion that its paid for by tax payers might not have a ton of merit. From what I gather, the green below is the ranch in question. you can see the various state sections. Far from what i'd consider key land locked public parcels as far as the west goes as a whole.

 

[wind gypsy]

While private land owners dont own the wildlife, i do have sympathy for folks who manage their land for wildlife who are impacted by trespassers and poachers. They have limited recourse. No idea on the case with this particular landowner but if I were a rancher who gave up a bunch of feed, supported habitat, provided sanctuary, at a very real cost to maintain solid wildlife populations and good hunting - i'd want some damn teeth to punish people who trespassed and killed a 370 type bull as well.

If it was just a free for all for hunters on the place, that bull likely wouldn't have existed as he did.

 

[svivian]

I love it when guys get creative to block the only access into chunks of blm….

 

[KenLee]

I love it when guys get creative to block the only access into chunks of blm….

View attachment 943709View attachment 943710

If I wanted to hunt state owned land in my home state, the powers that be would just have to charge me. It would cost the state $10k to prosecute me effectively. They'd have to pay real dirt lawyers or look like idiots in court.

 

[3forks]

While private land owners dont own the wildlife, i do have sympathy for folks who manage their land for wildlife who are impacted by trespassers and poachers. They have limited recourse. No idea on the case with this particular landowner but if I were a rancher who gave up a bunch of feed, supported habitat, provided sanctuary, at a very real cost to maintain solid wildlife populations and good hunting - i'd want some damn teeth to punish people who trespassed and killed a 370 type bull as well.

If it was just a free for all for hunters on the place, that bull likely wouldn't have existed as he did.

I hear you, and agree with almost everything you said… However, there’s a lot of ranchers who are compensated by the state for loss of hay/crops, yet they won’t allow the public on their property to hunt the animals that have become a resident herd. And, if any hunting is allowed, it’s for cows only and any bulls are not permitted to be taken. A lot of ranches will claim they don’t want those herds on their property, but what they really want is a payout from the state, and to keep the bulls/bucks for themselves or to lease hunting rights for those bucks/bulls.

 

[MtnW]

It’s crazy to allow the ranchers to tie up prime game rich land locked public land . Not allowing the state’s game departments to manage and allow public hunting on on these land locked publicly owned properties needs to be changed. A lot of these properties are owned by the same big money LLC’s who own many ranches in several states across the Rocky Mountain west . These LLC’s use our land locked lands as their very own private hunting clubs for their business buddies. It’s a scam.

 

[KenLee]

It’s crazy to allow the ranchers to tie up prime game rich land locked public land . Not allowing the state’s game departments to manage and allow public hunting on on these land locked publicly owned properties needs to be changed. A lot of these properties are owned by the same big money LLC’s who own many ranches in several states across the Rocky Mountain west . These LLC’s use our land locked lands as their very own private hunting clubs for their business buddies. It’s a scam.

Band together to make the state attorney general do his/her job to establish easement access.

 

[alexnelon]

Prosecute for trespassing if there’s a case, but if that bull was shot on state land and the shooter had a valid tag, I don’t want to hear anything about the potential value loss the landowner may or may not have suffered. That’s like killing a big bull and getting sued by a guide because he had already sent trail cam pictures to a client.

That’s asinine.

If it would’ve been all legal if the hunter was dropped in on a helicopter, it’s not a wildlife violation.

If the hunter had a valid tag and killed a legal bull on public land, it’s not poaching. Period.

If the guy trespassed, give him whatever the worst punishment is for trespassing.

 

[cnelk]

I hear you, and agree with almost everything you said… However, there’s a lot of ranchers who are compensated by the state for loss of hay/crops, yet they won’t allow the public on their property to hunt the animals that have become a resident herd. And, if any hunting is allowed, it’s for cows only and any bulls are not permitted to be taken. A lot of ranches will claim they don’t want those herds on their property, but what they really want is a payout from the state, and to keep the bulls/bucks for themselves or to lease hunting rights for those bucks/bulls.

If memory serves me correctly, this is how Colorado RFW (Ranching for Wildlife) was implemented - so the State went into cooperation with ranchers that had claims for damages.
Let some public hunting access or not get reimbursement

Obviously not all ranchers do this.

 

[7RemMag]

No one is saying the landowners own the wildlife. The only comments I saw were saying that he was managing access as if he owned the wildlife, which is a very different thing.

And the notion that you can have private-locked public land is crazy.

I apologize. I will be editing my original post. I was multitasking, and left out the part of that statement that said "in the original article" (ie Wyoming Residents).

 

[3325]

Couldn't put Defendant hunter on the stand to testify. Make wardens prove their case.

It’s the state’s case to prove, not the warden’s. The warden will be a witness for the state if the case goes to trial. In all likelihood, the warden could care less if the defendant is acquitted or found guilty. In all likelihood, the warden could care less if the state dismissed the case.

 

[AHayes111]

Implied easement by necessity is the term that should be argued. Go back in chain of title to find where that parcel was cut out and sold off. You can't sell a land locked parcel without giving an easement

Land locked BLM land is a product of the homestead act. The homestead act started in the 1860's and gave homesteaders 160 acres of land as long as they made improvements. Over the next 70 or so years the act was modified several times,more land was given and the Gov. retained the minerals. The homesteaders of course laid claim to the most productive land available. When the homestead act was discontinued the land that was unclaimed became BLM land. This is why most of the private land tends to be in the more productive river and creek bottoms and the BLM tends to be the rougher hills. Should have the Gov retained an easment to the unclamed land when the sournding land was homesteaded a hundred years ago or more. Probably, but no one was thinking about access back then.