Wyoming corner crossing lawsuit

[Rjsand70]

It's about negotiating access... and with most BLM land allotments, there is VERY LITTLE private land typically "owned"- often less than 1% of the total allotment. But is is often at key access points (like this spot where ALL the public land is a few inches away). I agree, don't cross my fence (or damage it please!!

But... the managing agency CAN work with the rancher (and their hunting guides that buy their tags from them) to "trade" access for tags (they do this in some western states and have for at least a decade or more). I know a lot here already know this, but it's an example of how to keep landowners happy (with money from the sale of tags), while opening up access for other hunters who have the right to enjoy public lands (until some politician sells it off one day after I'm hopefully gone).

My family owned several ranches, and leased a few for over 40 years-- all PRIVATE land. I have personally built 60 miles of fence in my lifetime- good red-top wire fence too (we had goats and sheep to keep in and coyote to keep out!). But I ALSO have killed about 15 elk- ALL on public land in the western US (only one guided hunt BTW). I strongly feel young hunters without the priveledge of land ownership (like I had growing up) should have a place to go hunt. And there we no elk on our ranches.

Cities have public easements along side the streets in front of private homes where people can walk the dog or park the car and get around to the neighbor's house, etc. You cut the grass, but people are allowed on it for the "public good"-- which I believe makes the USA a cool place to live compared to other places without "access" to the world we have to share-- at least out at the edge of our property- sometimes. And I have to say, if it weren't for the $25k guided hunts out there these days- this wouldn't be an issue IF the fence wasn't touched-- because it WASN'T an issue until now. Ranchers never gave a damn--just want the fence to stay up so livestock doesn't get out... and please dont' shoot the windmill tails... or our water tanks!

I’m with this, I think if the managing agency would provide a walk way and a little ticket money to the rancher that’d be fair to everyone and probably how it should be. I guess I’m a little spoiled by always having had a private place to hunt, I need to make it a point to see the other side a little more on the public land.

 

[Jimss]

Wyo has public access to private through hma’s and walk in access acres available to hunt. I’m pretty sure this particular landowner/outfitter wants “his” area locked up from the public or he would be in one of these programs.

There are several very large ranches along the I80 corridor’s checkers board that are similar to this.

 

[Laramie]

I grew up near the ranch in question. Another angle for everyone to consider- I have considered purchasing property with a similar situation where it backed up to BLM. That really can influence land value... I ended up not buying but I learned quite a bit. If this becomes legal, a lot of land is going to lose value. People who bought property with a similar corner will now stand to lose quite a bit of money. Right or wrong, it is a point of contention.

I personally believe corner crossing should be negotiated, and landowners compensated yearly, to offset the loss they would take.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

If the landowners really object to anyone's shoulder possibly crossing their land, then I think the state should generously offer to purchase the 2 square feet at the corners for the original per-square-foot purchase price, or just eminent domain that amount.

"Your shoulder entered my airspace" is not trespassing, never has been. I can walk the entirety of your property line hanging my whole arm over your fence, wiggling my leg between each slat, and as long as my repeated cries of "not touching can't get mad" don't meet any local nuisance statute I've broken no law, certainly not trespassing. Don't my my word for it, look at the document published by the Wyoming legislation: https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSOTopicSummaryTrespass.pdf

"General Criminal Trespass To be guilty of criminal trespass, a person must enter or remain on the private property of another either:"

Relevant portion, must enter and remain on the property. This is generally an intentional writing so as not to cover, say, someone who pulls over on the side of the road briefly. Or, as happened to me this weekend, tripping over a fallen branch and falling onto privately held land where there is no fence. By no reasonable reading of this law can you tell me that by stepping over two adjoining corners, or erecting a zipline, or throwing my hunting partner like Gimli the Dwarf, or emplacing briefly a ladder to climb over two fenceposts placed without a fence meets the definition of entering and remaining on someone else's property.

If someone can show me a single case, I'll accept anywhere in the US, where a limb briefly entering someone else's real estate was ruled to be criminal trespass in court I'd be happy to give it a look, but as is this seems to come from the "I have the right to shoot trespassers on sight" school of jurisprudence, which has as much legal standing as a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I grew up near the ranch in question. Another angle for everyone to consider- I have considered purchasing property with a similar situation where it backed up to BLM. That really can influence land value... I ended up not buying but I learned quite a bit. If this becomes legal, a lot of land is going to lose value. People who bought property with a similar corner will now stand to lose quite a bit of money. Right or wrong, it is a point of contention.

I personally believe corner crossing should be negotiated, and landowners compensated yearly, to offset the loss they would take.

With all due respect, horse hockey. If landowners were getting more value for their land because it land-locked publicly owned land, then that value is ill-gotten. I would think that if hunters in this suit can show that sellers are using the idea of otherwise inaccessable public land as a selling point, they'll make the point that right now landowners are illegally profiting off of this. They have no right to sell exclusive access to public land; it's not theirs to sell.

If someone loses property value because they can no longer prevent the public from using public land then justice has been done.

I suppose next we'll be seeing landowners trying to buy up parcels adjoining both sides of the Big Sioux River and trying to charge tolls to for fishermen whos lures touch the riverbed.

 

[T28w]

I grew up near the ranch in question. Another angle for everyone to consider- I have considered purchasing property with a similar situation where it backed up to BLM. That really can influence land value... I ended up not buying but I learned quite a bit. If this becomes legal, a lot of land is going to lose value. People who bought property with a similar corner will now stand to lose quite a bit of money. Right or wrong, it is a point of contention.

I personally believe corner crossing should be negotiated, and landowners compensated yearly, to offset the loss they would take.

What loss

If the landowners really object to anyone's shoulder possibly crossing their land, then I think the state should generously offer to purchase the 2 square feet at the corners for the original per-square-foot purchase price, or just eminent domain that amount.

"Your shoulder entered my airspace" is not trespassing, never has been. I can walk the entirety of your property line hanging my whole arm over your fence, wiggling my leg between each slat, and as long as my repeated cries of "not touching can't get mad" don't meet any local nuisance statute I've broken no law, certainly not trespassing. Don't my my word for it, look at the document published by the Wyoming legislation: https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-2019060313-01LSOTopicSummaryTrespass.pdf

"General Criminal Trespass To be guilty of criminal trespass, a person must enter or remain on the private property of another either:"

Relevant portion, must enter and remain on the property. This is generally an intentional writing so as not to cover, say, someone who pulls over on the side of the road briefly. Or, as happened to me this weekend, tripping over a fallen branch and falling onto privately held land where there is no fence. By no reasonable reading of this law can you tell me that by stepping over two adjoining corners, or erecting a zipline, or throwing my hunting partner like Gimli the Dwarf, or emplacing briefly a ladder to climb over two fenceposts placed without a fence meets the definition of entering and remaining on someone else's property.

If someone can show me a single case, I'll accept anywhere in the US, where a limb briefly entering someone else's real estate was ruled to be criminal trespass in court I'd be happy to give it a look, but as is this seems to come from the "I have the right to shoot trespassers on sight" school of jurisprudence, which has as much legal standing as a Bugs Bunny cartoon.


With all due respect, horse hockey. If landowners were getting more value for their land because it land-locked publicly owned land, then that value is ill-gotten. I would think that if hunters in this suit can show that sellers are using the idea of otherwise inaccessable public land as a selling point, they'll make the point that right now landowners are illegally profiting off of this. They have no right to sell exclusive access to public land; it's not theirs to sell.

If someone loses property value because they can no longer prevent the public from using public land then justice has been done.

I suppose next we'll be seeing landowners trying to buy up parcels adjoining both sides of the Big Sioux River and trying to charge tolls to for fishermen whos lures touch the riverbed.

agreed. Compensated for what. You still have access to the land.

 

[Trial153]

I grew up near the ranch in question. Another angle for everyone to consider- I have considered purchasing property with a similar situation where it backed up to BLM. That really can influence land value... I ended up not buying but I learned quite a bit. If this becomes legal, a lot of land is going to lose value. People who bought property with a similar corner will now stand to lose quite a bit of money. Right or wrong, it is a point of contention.

I personally believe corner crossing should be negotiated, and landowners compensated yearly, to offset the loss they would take.

What loss? What damages?

Maybe the private land owners should be paying back for their years of use of publicly owned lands and blocking of public access.

If there are damages it’s be to owed it’s to public.

 

[wind gypsy]

If youre at a corner post where 4 quarters meet in a section and you own one quarter and you’re standing on top of the corner post you’re probably trespassing. I know this is an extreme example but it’s true nobody is as narrow as a survey stake so they’re trespassing at a corner crossing.

If it’s trespassing as you say the hunters should be found guilty. We will see.

If the state or fed want to buy land for public use it’s up to them to pay for a crossing and possibly trespassing fees.

The public land in question has been federally owned since it was part of the US. They didn’t “buy it for public use”.

I would’ve done the same thing that the Hunter’s did but airspace is included in the bundle of ownership. The ranchers seem a little extreme in their pursuit of these dudes but we don’t know what all has happened to them or on them at this corner. In my mind ranchers and generational ownership of land comes far before public hunting ground. Crucify me.

This ranch isn’t in generational ownership. Here’s the listing from its recent sale https://chickeringco.com/portfolio-item/elk-mountain/

It’d be funny if all this public land that ranchers supposedly don’t like yet are happy to benefit from did get sold to private folks. I'm sure ranchers would love it if all the BLM checkerboard they treat as their own became private checkerboard and all the other private section owners started charging the existing owners for trespassing like they do to the public.

 

[robby denning]

The "strange bedfellows" angle is why i wanted to make sure you guys know it's appreciated. You and Ryan aren't exactly BHA poster boys and I think we'd all be in a better place if people looked at each issue on it's own merits rather than attaching it to a tribe (political party, non-profit org, etc).

I agree, we’re never gonna get anywhere as hunters if we are only going to partner with people who are exactly like us. I don’t have to agree with somebody on everything to find common ground on more important issues


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goathunter]

Time to put your money where your mouth is...

 

[Heath Hansen]

I’m a rancher and farmer too and I’m not against public land hunters if it’s there get it, but, they need not be on a private fence crossing a private fence or any of the like. The crossing is up to the state in my mind and until then if your shoulders enter another man’s airspace I guess it’s trespassing. Gotta be some kind of walkway or something. I’ve dealt with entitled morons and private fence and I know why ranchers get mad enough to go to court.

All that being said the government shouldn’t be allowed to own land and eminent domain is tyranny while we’re on the subject.

 

[goathunter]

Seriously think of how much we spend on gear every year. Take a year off and donate it to this legal fund, or a public land advocacy group. THAT will do so much more to improve your hunting than new Sitka clothes!

 

[Laramie]

What loss? What damages?

What loss

If this law is changed to allow corner crossing, some ranch land values will drop. Some very significantly.

To be clear, I don't agree with landowners controlling public lands. However, when those properties were purchased they were valued with this control of access in mind. See the price of 80 acres backing up to public land vs another 80 without a mile down the road. It is drastically different.

I personally believe they should be compensated and actual crossings installed. That is the only way this is done cleanly imo.

 

[Customweld]

If this law is changed to allow corner crossing, some ranch land values will drop. Some very significantly.

To be clear, I don't agree with landowners controlling public lands. However, when those properties were purchased they were valued with this control of access in mind. See the price of 80 acres backing up to public land vs another 80 without a mile down the road. It is drastically different.

I personally believe they should be compensated and actual crossings installed. That is the only way this is done cleanly imo.

I think that falls into due diligence. At some point, folks had to know this was going to come to a head. They may come out ahead, they may lose. That's the cost of entering into something that hasn't been 100 percent decided. We are talking possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. It doesn't take long to rack up a huge bill when it comes to land prices.

 

[Pro953]

If this law is changed to allow corner crossing, some ranch land values will drop. Some very significantly.

To be clear, I don't agree with landowners controlling public lands. However, when those properties were purchased they were valued with this control of access in mind. See the price of 80 acres backing up to public land vs another 80 without a mile down the road. It is drastically different.

I personally believe they should be compensated and actual crossings installed. That is the only way this is done cleanly imo.

I can appreciate the concept, but I think that falls under assumption and speculation on the buyers part or due diligence. No more than having a piece of property with a great view then a neighbor building a tall house that blocks your view and devaluing your property as it no longer has a view.

As was noted above, what if some senators got their way and all public land was sold off to private. Should the rancher be compensated for the loss in property value if that land became private?

We all like it when we make a speculative investment and it makes is wealthy, but as soon as we make a poor decision and that investment turns south, it is never on us, “somebody is screwing me over”. What ever happened to personal responsibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bighorner]

That value is for the leased grass. It was not for the recreational lease. If there was additional value in hoping to exclude the public from public land, that was a risk they took. That's a due diligence and risk tolerance issue. No one gets compensate for that.

On large parcels of land locked public ground there are generally a group of neighbors that hold access. If one of those neighbors enroll in an access program it opens up that parcel regardless of the adjoining neighbors regardless of who holds the grazing lease.

 

[Zork]

I’m a rancher and farmer too and I’m not against public land hunters if it’s there get it, but, they need not be on a private fence crossing a private fence or any of the like. The crossing is up to the state in my mind and until then if your shoulders enter another man’s airspace I guess it’s trespassing. Gotta be some kind of walkway or something. I’ve dealt with entitled morons and private fence and I know why ranchers get mad enough to go to court.

All that being said the government shouldn’t be allowed to own land and eminent domain is tyranny while we’re on the subject.

The government doesn't own the land. We all own it.

 

[Dos Perros]

I've definitely voiced criticism of BHA and also the post-acquisition MeatEater, but that doesn't mean they're all wrong all the time. I really don't see another way to see it other than I hope these dudes win. The vast majority of us should support that. I understand there are those here who won't, and that's fine.

I worry that these folks have pushed this issue that will affect all of us, and maybe they didn't do it in the best way, and therefore that could harm us all, too. I guess I'm reserving the right to be pissed if they mess this up.

 

[voltage]

From the property listing when it was for sale...

 

[Laramie]

I can appreciate the concept, but I think that falls under assumption and speculation on the buyers part or due diligence. No more than having a piece of property with a great view then a neighbor building a tall house that blocks your view and devaluing your property as it no longer has a view.

Actually this is closer to your neighbor building a deck that slightly hangs over your yard. Would you be ok with that?

Again, I'm for change but too many people are ready to throw away others rights these days without consideration. The reality is the ladder, or crossing, or whatever will occupy private landowner space. It's just a tiny piece of their huge property but where do we draw the line? I don't think it's right for a landowner to be forced into this just based on the principal. However, I would love to see a solution that at least makes an attempt to satisfy both sides.

 

[Rjsand70]

The government doesn't own the land. We all own it.

Ehhh your names not on the place pal. They can tell you we own it but it was purchased by the government