Trophy bull and a trespass charge

[Q_Sertorius]

I would ask if he "hunted" his way across the private to eventually kill the animal on a public parcel.

I imagine that he drove all or most of the way. Given the general appearance, I doubt this guy hiked in and packed out six miles

Even so, it would seem that the game violation trespass applies because of the intent to hunt.

The way the actual statute is written supports that reading of the law.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/title-23/chapter-3/article-3/section-23-3-305/#:~:text=(b)%20No%20person%20shall%20enter,of%20the%20landowner%20or%20lessee.&text=Disclaimer:%20These%20codes%20may%20not,Please%20check%20official%20sources.

(b) No person shall enter upon, travel through or return across the private property of any person to take wildlife, hunt, fish, collect antlers or horns, or trap without the permission of the owner or person in charge of the property. Violation of this subsection constitutes a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(v). For purposes of this subsection "travel through or return across" requires physically touching or driving on the surface of the private property.

The statute does not say that the "taking" must occur on the private property. That puts a slightly different twist on it than what was quoted above.

 

[Valumpessa]

if they can prove he killed that bull on private property, he’s screwed. And justifiably.

Picture of him with trees in the background. Between that and locating a carcass/gut pile they should be able to locate the kill site.

 

[3forks]

We need to quit arguing semantics and what if scenarios and go after this guy’s sponsors:
Monster Energy
Copenhagen
Little Debbie’s
Carhartt
Tasco Optics
Etc.

 

[Dos Perros]

You guys can debate the semantics and nuance of this till the cows come home. The dude broke the law.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I also don't agree that we should be forced to allow access to that public land through our land (there are a couple of places where it is only a couple hundred yards from the road to the public boundary). There are other access points and honestly, ours was private long before that piece was public (we were their first).

If there are other access points its not landlocked. We're talking about landlocked land with zero access, which if it was private property wouldn't be allowed, there would HAVE to be an access route to it allowed.

In the cases where a single property owner truly landlocks a piece of public this is zero sympathy in my mind about being forced to provide access. Somewhere along the way the private land surrounded a piece of property knowingly that was not their property, it would be ridiculous for that owner to assume they had no obligation to provide some means of access to the owner of the property they surrounded. In this situation that owner is the public.

Like I said it is my opinion that historically folks probably never expected such an issue that an owner wouldn't allow another some sort of means to access their property, it was probably just expected behavior? That obviously doesn't mean the blocked owner gets to cross wherever they want but there needs to be an agree upon and realistic way.

 

[KurtR]

We need to quit arguing semantics and what if scenarios and go after this guy’s sponsors:
Monster Energy
Copenhagen
Little Debbie’s
Carhartt
Tasco Optics
Etc.


View attachment 943915

Dont forget wrangler

 

[wyosam]

This is in my neck of the woods. I actually ran into this young(er) fella last November right after he killed a nice whitetail buck on a little section of state ground. It was actually the buck I was hunting for. I helped him gut it( easiest way in that situation for him to keep the cape) and drag it the couple hundred yards to his pickup.

His family has a far less than perfect reputation in the area, and no doubt has committed some game violations over the years. He absolutely trespassed to get to the elk that he killed.

HOWEVER, I have heard mention of a potential lawsuit by the landowner over the “trophy” elk, and I take as much issue with that as a person trespassing. It outrages me to see the number of comments on the original article by Cowboy State Daily supporting the idea that landowners own the wildlife. Most of those are likely "big" landowners here in the West, specifically Wyoming. That's fundamentally wrong, and goes against everything this nation was founded on.

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

Yep, if he trespassed, that’s the law that was broken. If he killed a giant bull on public land that was in season, that he had a tag for? I’m struggling to see the violation in that part of his day. Trespassing is illegal. Hunting on public land is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3forks]

Dont forget wrangler

Wrangler is the brand of clothing I own the most of… I want to believe those are some other brand of pants the guy is wearing, but the thought did cross my mind.

 

[Pulleye16]

hey...it's cheaper then paying the ranch and guide! LOL

I might start doing that.

 

[KurtR]

Wrangler is the brand of clothing I own the most of… I want to believe those are some other brand of pants the guy is wearing, but the thought did cross my mind.

im sure he hase roper boots to. looks like he should have a muley freak bino harness

 

[3forks]

im sure he hase roper boots to. looks like he should have a muley freak bino harness

Good eye.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

You guys are talking about flying into 1 section islands of state land that are managed for max revenue generation to fund schools.

Question is, can anyone lease the land from the state and be granted access or is access to the state land for leasing purposes restricted to the landowners surrounding it? If the latter how can the state maximize revenue? Honest question.

But yes this plot is nuanced a bit compared to BLM or NFS land.

 

[Hnthrdr]

If there are other access points its not landlocked. We're talking about landlocked land with zero access, which if it was private property wouldn't be allowed, there would HAVE to be an access route to it allowed.

In the cases where a single property owner truly landlocks a piece of public this is zero sympathy in my mind about being forced to provide access. Somewhere along the way the private land surrounded a piece of property knowingly that was not their property, it would be ridiculous for that owner to assume they had no obligation to provide some means of access to the owner of the property they surrounded. In this situation that owner is the public.

Like I said it is my opinion that historically folks probably never expected such an issue that an owner wouldn't allow another some sort of means to access their property, it was probably just expected behavior? That obviously doesn't mean the blocked owner gets to cross wherever they want but there needs to be an agree upon and realistic way.

I’d guess 10-20 years ago this was less of an issue out west, now days with the ever growing army of influencers and obsession with western hunting these land locked parcels get a lot more attention because of all of it.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I’d guess 10-20 years ago this was less of an issue out west, now days with the ever growing army of influencers and obsession with western hunting these land locked parcels get a lot more attention because of all of it.

Probably but if 20yrs ago it was already defined "here is the approved path in and out of this parcel I've land locked" we wouldn't be where we are now either.

 

[BigWoods]

If I was the prosecutor, I think I'd want to present those pants as evidence of having crossed a fence...

 

[Steve300xcw]

If I was the prosecutor, I think I'd want to present those pants as evidence of having crossed a fence...

I dunno 'bout that. Pretty easy to blow the crotch outta a pair of jeans. Hell thats why I stopped buying levi's

 

[SloppyJ]

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

True but it's not a public easement. It's a private access easement to the now landlocked parcel through the parent tract.

Now, if you're arguing there was once public access or prescriptive public access to a now land locked parcel, I certainly agree. Unfortunately, that's typically on the county planning staff to enforce or whoever reviews the lot split or replat.

Let's be honest though, as the person buying that parcel, I wouldn't be upset if they didn't require me to dedicate a public access easement to the public portion of land that I'm proposing to cut off access to. That's the selfish side of everyone.

There shouldn't be any public land without access but that's just not the case. The only way to make that happen is to condemn tax payer's property to create that access because I promise you that 95% of them are not going to willing give up an easement or the property even if they're offered fair market value. The value of restricting the access is more important to them whether that be less people coming near their place or their ability to access this landlocked public property.

To me, it's easy to see both sides. I've been looking at property that is adjacent to national forest and the cost certainly represents that. So if that were to happen to me, I'd appeal it as a takings and a direct impact to my property value. Might not win, but it'd be worth a shot.

 

[Hnthrdr]

If I was the prosecutor, I think I'd want to present those pants as evidence of having crossed a fence...
View attachment 943937

Case closed!!!

 

[Hnthrdr]

True but it's not a public easement. It's a private access easement to the now landlocked parcel through the parent tract.

Now, if you're arguing there was once public access or prescriptive public access to a now land locked parcel, I certainly agree. Unfortunately, that's typically on the county planning staff to enforce or whoever reviews the lot split or replat.

Let's be honest though, as the person buying that parcel, I wouldn't be upset if they didn't require me to dedicate a public access easement to the public portion of land that I'm proposing to cut off access to. That's the selfish side of everyone.

There shouldn't be any public land without access but that's just not the case. The only way to make that happen is to condemn tax payer's property to create that access because I promise you that 95% of them are not going to willing give up an easement or the property even if they're offered fair market value. The value of restricting the access is more important to them whether that be less people coming near their place or their ability to access this landlocked public property.

To me, it's easy to see both sides. I've been looking at property that is adjacent to national forest and the cost certainly represents that. So if that were to happen to me, I'd appeal it as a takings and a direct impact to my property value. Might not win, but it'd be worth a shot.

I agree, I use a lot more public than I do private, family has a decent ranch in AZ, they are very generous when it comes to people asking permission but also have had to deal with idiots leaving gates open, trash, ect… no one takes care of your land… like you ( for the most part) all these people thinking that having an easement through to tiny of islands of public would be cool with guys using it…
Meh I bet after 1 season you would be so chit full of all the bs that Joe my ass does to gates/ fences/ driving all over ect that you would want it closed.