Wyoming Corner Crossing defense fund

[Bighorner]

Right case? That seems to say they were waiting for the right opportunity to force a trial. My question was asking if they have worked collaboratively with stakeholders to find solutions.

I think there is an important distinction. Something like this could set a precedent for all similar situations. This means that each time this same situation comes up it dosent have to be renegotiated with the stakeholders. It gives everyone a clear path moving forward. I do believe it is always best to be a good neighbor to begin with.

 

[wyosteve]

Just gonna add .02 as a caveat. If my poor memory is correct this very issue went in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court around 15 years ago and the trespass was upheld. I haven't researched it today, but it might be worth someone doing a search on the Wyo. Supreme Court website.

 

[RyanT26]

@BuzzH what’s up with this?

 

[wapitibob]

He's in Montana hunting, limited service.
WY BHA has had 2 meetings with the hunters so far.

 

[Mtnboy]

If public to public than I agree with you 100% and no ticket should've been issued. In addition, if the landowner is chaining up public to public access, he is the one that should be cited for criminal harrassment or vandalism.

If private to public, then there needs to be an easement or some other accomodation/agreements with the landowners.

Not trying to be a jerk, but do you understand what corner crossing is?

 

[J300UM]

Wyoming state chapter BHA is much different than a concerted all hands on deck effort from the national Backcountry Hunter's and Angler's head quarters. I've no doubt they have lawyers on staff if they were really interested in being involved. Seems they tend to duck all action on any issues that are controversial and leave blame at the feet of the state chapter.

It's an important issue so I donated and will continue to as the struggle moves forward. I just hope BHA doesn't get wet feet and punt later. The set back for access to public lands could be devastating; once Pandora box is torn open there's no going back.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I wouldn’t hold your breath on the WY BHA getting actively involved. They tend to shy away from anything that may generate any controversy as well. The statement they once made to me of “some battles just aren’t worth the effort” told me all I needed to hear consideration that specific scenario. You made mention of landowners and their political influence in Wyoming and you hit the nail right on the head. The “good ole boy” system is still very much alive and well here. Nearly to the level of John Dutton in some regions of the state.

 

[307]

The ramifications of this case potentially affecting property values is huge.

I hope they are able to achieve a favorable outcome, but private property rights preservation is near the top of the priority list for Wyoming.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Not trying to be a jerk, but do you understand what corner crossing is?

Yes, I do, though admittedly I was confusing corner crossing and land locked access at first.

Regardless of either scenario, there should be clearly marked easements that allow access to the public lands. In the corner crossing scenario, maybe a fenced 5'-10' setback from all corner posts. In the landlocked scenario, the location of the eaesment should be negotiated with the land owner.

Bottom line is that public lands should not be a defacto extension of a private landowner's holding. And taxpayers shouldn't have to use a helicopter to access public lands.

 

[Jn78]

It's a small distinction, but it's important. Corner crossing is not pushing for an easement. It is pushing for the court to recognize that crossing over air space is not harming the land owner and certainly not harming the landowner more than the harm of excluding to general public to public land. Forcing an easement is eminent domain and most people think that is not the preferred route to settle things.

Well, corner crossing is really about the fact that land ownership technically extends up into the sky, so a person can trespass by being in the airspace above another's land even though that trespass may never involve actually stepping on another's land.

Correct, and this case is the perfect example to test in court. You can plainly see the landowner is trying to keep public off public land, and crossing at this specific corner does not damage nor infringe on said landowners use of his property.

The landowner is actually just asking law enforcement to enforce the law. Historically, according to property law, the use of airspace immediately above another's land infringes on their ownership. Legally, a person's right to exclusively use airspace above his property doesn't extend forever - thus, planes can fly above a person's property. This is why you can fly a in a helicopter and get dropped off on piece of public in checkerboard.

I am not saying I like this - I am just pointing out why corner crossing is illegal. None of us likes this, but in court, it doesn't matter what a person likes or how a person feels. To succeed on this issue, a corner crosser would probably have to convince a court (or the legislature) that the spatially and temporally limited use of private airspace directly above a corner does not infringe on the ordinary use and enjoyment of a landowner's land.

 

[cnelk]

I bet we find out what really BHA will stand up for on this one.

Talk about a softball pitch to get into the game.

 

[Bighorner]

Well, corner crossing is really about the fact that land ownership technically extends up into the sky, so a person can trespass by being in the airspace above another's land even though that trespass may never involve actually stepping on another's land.



The landowner is actually just asking law enforcement to enforce the law. Historically, according to property law, the use of airspace immediately above another's land infringes on their ownership. Legally, a person's right to exclusively use airspace above his property doesn't extend forever - thus, planes can fly above a person's property. This is why you can fly a in a helicopter and get dropped off on piece of public in checkerboard.

I am not saying I like this - I am just pointing out why corner crossing is illegal. None of us likes this, but in court, it doesn't matter what a person likes or how a person feels. To succeed on this issue, a corner crosser would probably have to convince a court (or the legislature) that the spatially and temporally limited use of private airspace directly above a corner does not infringe on the ordinary use and enjoyment of a landowner's land.

There is intent. And that is important. Is the intent to protect his air space or is the intent to deny access? What is equitable, invasion of air space or to thousands of acres of land? I don't know, but I do think it should be addressed. To the best of my limited knowledge that air space height is not defined. The last I knew you could fly a drone over private property. This is certainly not a cut and dried matter as some would like you to believe. It is very gray and deserves a its day in court.

 

[Bighorner]

I bet we find out what really BHA will stand up for on this one.

Talk about a softball pitch to get into the game.

Agreed. This seems to be the chance for them to put their money where there mouth is.

 

[204guy]

Curious does this go to a jury trial or does a single judge decide?

The chain that violates the public lands air space could get interesting if that's going to be the private land crux.

 

[TheTone]

I bet we find out what really BHA will stand up for on this one.

Talk about a softball pitch to get into the game.

Think anyone else will? SCI, NRA, rmef,
Celeb hunters?

 

[Vandy321]

Going on a personal conversation I had with Land Tawny (BHA) about 18 months ago.

He stated they were waiting for the right case to go forward.

Ron


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That dude will say anything to keep the donations rolling in....as evidenced by the fact he told you that 18 months ago and they still have yet to lift a finger.

 

[jmez]

So technically, by law, I can set up a surveillance camera on the public sidewalk running on my property. If someone cuts the corner and steps over my yard, rather than staying completely on the sidewalk, I can prosecute them for trespassing. Everyone that lives in town in WY should start doing this, and call the police every time they see it happen. Demand that charges be filed. Provide video evidence of your airspace being invaded.

 

[String&stick]

Donated!

Maybe @Randy Newberg can share this with his massive following and get more donations rolling in!

If any excess is going to access Yes why not run up the donations!

Edit: was too lazy to go look and thought out loud first! Randy being the amazing guy he is was already way ahead on this. Thanks for all you do Randy!

 

[Rich M]

If public to public than I agree with you 100% and no ticket should've been issued. In addition, if the landowner is chaining up public to public access, he is the one that should be cited for criminal harrassment or vandalism.

If private to public, then there needs to be an easement or some other accomodation/agreements with the landowners.

No there does not need to be an easement or accommodations, that's the chant, but history does not support this. If it did, there would already be access. (In reality it would be nice if they could get some headway to open these lands.)

If you call and ask the game warden about corner crossing, he will most likely tell you that you can't hunt the checkerboards. I hunted the NE corner in 2017 and was specifically told by GW not to do any corner crossing, he would ticket me.

There is a thread on here where Buzz and the guys how tell you to corner cross have an official memo that says folks are not to be ticketed for corner crossing. As you can tell with this thread, that is a fairy tale. We'll find out if the boys can get to a high enough court that is willing to allow hunters to corner cross that will change the fact that if you corner cross, you will get a ticket if the landowner complains. And boy do they ever.

In 2017 a landowner told me he was gonna have me ticketed for standing in a numbered, county road. They really believe that they control all they can see, and it seems probable since its ultimately a political thing, and the large land owners control the state.

How does WY really feel? These are out of the WY hunt finder Antelope map:

"The southern half of the area occurs within a checkerboard of alternating public and private lands. Access to public lands within the checkerboard is typically quite restricted."

"While roughly 60 percent is public land, slightly more than the southern half of this area lies in what is called the “checkerboard,” where every other square mile is private. As a result, public lands in the checkerboard that do not touch a public road are generally not accessible without permission of a private land owner."

Seems kind of cut and dried, but here we go. John Smith VS private land rights.

 

[Jn78]

There is intent. And that is important. Is the intent to protect his air space or is the intent to deny access? What is equitable, invasion of air space or to thousands of acres of land? I don't know, but I do think it should be addressed. To the best of my limited knowledge that air space height is not defined. The last I knew you could fly a drone over private property. This is certainly not a cut and dried matter as some would like you to believe. It is very gray and deserves a its day in court.

Intent is important. Here, the landownership property rights at issue basically came to us via common law hundreds and hundreds of years ago from across the pond, so you are not dealing with legislative intent like you would for some other laws. Therefore, it will probably be hard to make an argument based on intend of the law-making body. Intent here (unfortunately for hunters) was to protect the landowner's rights - something that was historically very highly valued. In the eyes of the law, public access had zero value hundreds of years ago, so intent had nothing to do public access and, if anything, intent would have been to exclude others. We are stuck with that historical backdrop until a modern court or the legislature tells us different. It sucks.

 

[wapitibob]

Donated!

Maybe @Randy Newberg can share this with his massive following and get more donations rolling in!

If any excess is going to access Yes why not run up the donations!

It's been on his site for days.