Wyoming Corner Crossing Jury Trial Live Stream

[cnelk]

Oh I cross over boundaries all the time. But just like speeding, I'm willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise I wouldn't commit the violation. In CO, you can float a river over private property, but you can't legally touch bottom under the water.

There's a water access case in Colorado right now. Things might be changing

How One 80-Year-Old Angler Might Change Colorado Stream Access Forever

On a bluebird day in August 2012, a 71-year-old fly fisherman named Roger Hill was wading his favorite stretch of the Arkansas River, just downstream from Salida, Colorado, when he noticed a baseball-sized rock falling from a high bluff above his head. The rock plummeting toward him—the first of...

www.themeateater.com

 

[5MilesBack]

Apparently it's not

Well, there you go........problem solved.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Well, there you go........problem solved.

Corner crossing has always been un defined in WY
The argument from landowners has been you can't go directly across the corner without an inch of your body going thru the airspace of the intersecting corners.

Do they file charges on everyone that turns around in there driveway to? Cause that's way more of trespassing then if you swing a leg over there airspace.

 

[5MilesBack]

There's a water access case in Colorado right now. Things might be changing

The man may be confused as to property boundaries and Constitutional rights IMO. He stated that we have those rights to enter the river on public and fish waters adjacent to landowner's properties. And I would agree IF the property boundaries stopped at the high water marks of the river. But in many cases, the landowner's property boundaries go to the "centerline" of the river. In which case you would be trespassing if you're wading the river flowing over their property.

There are states like MT where you can access the river on public and wade that river through private land as long as you don't trespass above the high water mark. Each state has their own interpretations and precedents in regards to water law and water navigation law.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

Is that true about touching the bottom? Most states say you can’t leave the stream or River otherwise you are trespassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and technically even bumping a rock with your boat would be trespassing. It's very unrealistic to float down any river in Colorado without bumping or scraping rocks with your boat at some point. It's also a stupid law that needs amended.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's also a stupid law that needs amended.

Private property rights are stupid? Or just the laws protecting those rights are stupid?

That seems to be the way this country is going though......socialism.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Just so I understand...not guilty means that corner crossing has not been settled and the issue/law remains just as vague and unsettled in WY as it was before these guys were charged?
Good for the hunters not being charged...wouldn't be surprised if the civil case is dropped after this.

 

[Nickofthewoods]

Private property rights are stupid? Or just the laws protecting those rights are stupid?

Not what I meant of course. Again, just very unrealistic to boat down Colorado's shallow waterways without touching anything along the way which is why I think it needs changed.

 

[mtwarden]

Just so I understand...not guilty means that corner crossing has not been settled and the issue/law remains just as vague and unsettled in WY as it was before these guys were charged?
Good for the hunters not being charged...wouldn't be surprised if the civil case is dropped after this.

exactly; this is just one case, in one county

nothing preventing another prosecutor to take up another case at another date

it certainly doesn't hurt though and prosecutors may be more reluctant to take a case on now- time will tell

this isn't the first criminal case in Wyoming regarding corner crossing, would be nice if it was the last though

 

[Forestryguy]

For Sale:
Corner Monument

Make your own corner crossing access!

(Complete Satire)

View attachment 406030

Don't give people any ideas, b/c someone will be dumb enough to do it. Removing a monument is a Federal crime. It is a known point for all surveying in an area to be based off of.

 

[Billy Goat]

It seems to me, it's definitely determined that the landowner owns the airspace above their property, to what can be used within reason.


So I think the hunters were technically trespassing, just like if you bumped a boat on a river, walked down a sidewalk with your hand out. Question is if it would be an offense that would be ticketed. Seems it will likely not be ticketed now, I guess it will be handled like speeding, you can get away with some.

 

[cnelk]

Don't give people any ideas, b/c someone will be dumb enough to do it. Removing a monument is a Federal crime. It is a known point for all surveying in an area to be based off of.

You do know what 'satire' is yes?

 

[BRTreedogs]

It seems to me, it's definitely determined that the landowner owns the airspace above their property, to what can be used within reason.


So I think the hunters were technically trespassing, just like if you bumped a boat on a river, walked down a sidewalk with your hand out. Question is if it would be an offense that would be ticketed. Seems it will likely not be ticketed now, I guess it will be handled like speeding, you can get away with some.

Honest question.
Is there any determination on how high the airspace ownership goes?
10ft 300ft ? I has to end somewhere. Airplanes are avoiding the airspace around Elk mt ranch like its Russia.
I've never seen anything on how high they own.

 

[Billy Goat]

Honest question.
Is there any determination on how high the airspace ownership goes?
10ft 300ft ? I has to end somewhere. Airplanes are avoiding the airspace around Elk mt ranch like its Russia.
I've never seen anything on how high they own.

I can't remember it. I had researched it about drones, I think it doesn't exceed 200', but don't believe it's actually clearly defined.


Right now, drones can go about anywhere, which seems to me to be in violation

 

[Forestryguy]

You do know what 'satire' is yes?

Yes I know what it is. But there are some that are dumb enough to do it.

 

[Billy Goat]

Yes I know what it is. But there are some that are dumb enough to do it.

You know how cool they look in the man cave?

 

[gbflyer]

The verdict should boost the land surveying and fence building business.

 

[Farmingdale's Finest]

The man may be confused as to property boundaries and Constitutional rights IMO. He stated that we have those rights to enter the river on public and fish waters adjacent to landowner's properties. And I would agree IF the property boundaries stopped at the high water marks of the river. But in many cases, the landowner's property boundaries go to the "centerline" of the river. In which case you would be trespassing if you're wading the river flowing over their property.

There are states like MT where you can access the river on public and wade that river through private land as long as you don't trespass above the high water mark. Each state has their own interpretations and precedents in regards to water law and water navigation law.

The rules that you state MT has are the same as what we have in the states I have fished on the east coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

The man may be confused as to property boundaries and Constitutional rights IMO. He stated that we have those rights to enter the river on public and fish waters adjacent to landowner's properties. And I would agree IF the property boundaries stopped at the high water marks of the river. But in many cases, the landowner's property boundaries go to the "centerline" of the river. In which case you would be trespassing if you're wading the river flowing over their property.

There are states like MT where you can access the river on public and wade that river through private land as long as you don't trespass above the high water mark. Each state has their own interpretations and precedents in regards to water law and water navigation law.

Do you bother to read? The states were granted the riverbeds into perpetuity for the use of ALL it's citizens from the federal government. Show me where the citizens of Colorado ceded their rights to use those river and stream beds to private landowners.

Every state that has won stream access has argued it the same way, exactly how it's being argued in Colorado.

I hope Wyoming will gain stream access as well.

 

[BuzzH]

exactly; this is just one case, in one county

nothing preventing another prosecutor to take up another case at another date

it certainly doesn't hurt though and prosecutors may be more reluctant to take a case on now- time will tell

this isn't the first criminal case in Wyoming regarding corner crossing, would be nice if it was the last though

Show me a corner crossing case in Wyoming that has been successfully prosecuted under trespass to hunt or criminal trespass.

I can't find one.

For the record the only other corner crossing case I know of in Wyoming was the Bill Kearney case in Albany county that was also found in favor of the hunter. Kearney was charged under trespass to hunt title 23 and judge Castor ruled in favor of Kearney.

To the best of my knowledge this was the first attempt by a county attorney to prosecute corner crossing under criminal trespass. Also the second failed attempt to prosecute trespass to hunt for corner crossing.

The AG opinion written by Pat Crank warned of these outcomes for the prosecution specific to title 23. Which is why Wyoming wardens are instructed not to cite corner crossing.

Totally agree the 3 cases don't set precedent, but it's becoming apparent the house of cards of air space ownership is crumbling.