WY Corner Crossing Solution?

[bgipson]

Anyone noticed the piece of legislation introduced that would finally settle Corner Crossing? I'm not going to get my hopes up until a vote passes it but it is a step in the right direction. I've linked to the text below.

SF0056

 

[Legend]

Wow it is sponsored by a legislative committee. Where I come from those usually stand a chance.

 

[Rich M]

I saw something about expanding GW authority to ticket and deal w trespassing hunters instead of having to call sheriff.

 

[Silveroddo]

Seems like they’re using a darker shade of gray to color between the lines, think it’s enough? Still isn’t defining air space is it?

 

[SummitsCalling]

Courts will have to deal with it as it pertains to federal lands. Cannot unring the bell at this point.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Courts will have to deal with it as it pertains to federal lands. Cannot unring the bell at this point.

No, it does not.

It's pertains to private property.

If you can show me where it pertains to federal land, that would help.

 

[SummitsCalling]

No, it does not.

It's pertains to private property.

If you can show me where it pertains to federal land, that would help.
View attachment 498186

The adage of this bill seemed to be more geared towards the recent corner crossing issues, at least that's what I took from it. Shoring up verbage and such.

 

[Trackerbacker]

The adage of this bill seemed to be more geared towards the recent corner crossing issues, at least that's what I took from it. Shoring up verbage and such.

I do think that's the goal, but as mentioned, coloring with a darker shade of gray.

I do believe a court case is the only resolution, regardless of outcome

 

[Flyjunky]

The adage of this bill seemed to be more geared towards the recent corner crossing issues, at least that's what I took from it. Shoring up verbage and such.

That’s what I take from it as well. The verbiage of physically touching the surface isn’t subtle.

But, like @Trackerbacker said above, it will most likely take a court case to settle it.

 

[bgipson]

I don't see any uncertain terms in the proposed verbiage. To physically touch the surface leaves 0 interpretation.

 

[idelkslayer]

Physically touch with what? How do you define the surface?

Does this include touching brush? Ground surface only? What if I drop something from my pocket and that touches the surface of private property?

There's plenty of room for creative interpretation.

 

[dtrkyman]

We all should go to Wyoming this year and corner cross, get this chit resolved. Physically touch is fantastic, time to brush up on my hurdling skills!

The guys involved in the civil suit should send out coordinates so everyone can go cross the same place! Just leave that ladder for us!

 

[downthepipe]

I like the looks of the bill.

Need a federal law that says simply: all federal public land shall be accessible by foot at minimum.

 

[WCB]

I like the looks of the bill.

Need a federal law that says simply: all federal public land shall be accessible by foot at minimum.

So you believe in stealing peoples land?

 

[bgipson]

I like the looks of the bill.

Need a federal law that says simply: all federal public land shall be accessible by foot at minimum.

Not all public land is touching other public or accessible without crossing vast swaths of private. I can't support infringing on private landowners rights. Corner Crossing is entirely different where there are touching parcels vs some isolated pockets of "public".

 

[MallardSX2]

98% of the people wouldn't even be able to find the monument to step over it in the dark. lol

 

[bgipson]

Physically touch with what? How do you define the surface?

Does this include touching brush? Ground surface only? What if I drop something from my pocket and that touches the surface of private property?

There's plenty of room for creative interpretation.

Physically touch would insinuate anything under your control (yourself, you equipment, etc.) and surface would likely be interpreted as the land itself since bushes/trees are above the surface.

As far as dropping items, I would revert to the rest of the definition that doesn't allow entering private lands. I imagine if you could reach the item without entering the property, you would be fine otherwise you'd be in violation if caught entering to retrieve it.

I've got no issue with the clarification but I'm sure if passed it will get tied up in court. That said, it won't be reversed until that case closes so it would open the land for some time.

 

[jrkananen]

Would be nice to see this passed and agreed that it's a step in the right direction, but I think it's immediately going to be challenged in courts with landowners arguing about ownership of airspace

 

[Jethro]

This bill is not as specific to corner crossing as most of you are making it. Its about giving authority to game wardens to cite for trespass even when there is no intent to hunt private. A power that they currently do not have.

 

[bgipson]

This bill is not as specific to corner crossing as most of you are making it. Its about giving authority to game wardens to cite for trespass even when there is no intent to hunt private. A power that they currently do not have.

The statute is still the same with the clarifying statement that it requires contact with the land so it removes any ambiguity about airspace. Wardens have always been able to cite for trespass just not criminal trespass which they still can't even with this bill.