Wyoming corner crossing lawsuit

[Rjsand70]

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.

Have to install an arch and pay a trespass fee lol.

 

[realunlucky]

If this law is changed to allow corner crossing.

You assume it's against the law in Wyoming. I guess we'll find out here shortly

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

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

Not quite that simple. Federal Public lands (USFS, BLM, USFW, Reclamation, ACOE, etc) are owned collectively by the citizens of the United States of America through(emphasis) the federal government and management by federal agences on behalf of American Citizens.

 

[voltage]

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.

I agree. I am honestly not sure a win will mean a whole lot in terms of setting a precedent, but if they are convicted of trespass, there will definitely be a precedent set.

 

[Trial153]

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.

Land prices should drop if they are artificially high if the sales have hinged on value of the land being tied to what amounts as welfare/subsidy from the public.

Let the values go down the shitter for all I care.

 

[Bighorner]

This really is a case that has hung out in a legal gray area and has had mixed enforcement. I'm glad to see that we might finally get some clarity.

 

[robby denning]

This really is a case that has hung out in a legal gray area and has had mixed enforcement. I'm glad to see that we might finally get some clarity.

that's really where I'm at with it, and many of the posts on this thread have been educational and brought up points I hadn't thought of. In the end, it's still public land and it would only help the public hunter everyday joe to have reasonable access to the ground.

 

[Bighorner]

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.

I think this is actually closer to a neighbor building a 35 foot wide, by 55 foot tall shade fence on the property line because they dont like the smell of your garden.

 

[wind gypsy]

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

You've made multiple statements about the government buying it like it's some dark idea that they purchased land. When the government purchased it those tyrants bought it from France (Louisiana Purchase) along with all the sections that later became private when said tyrants gave it away to railroad companies..

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Far as I can tell the bolded/underlined is the driver of loss in value that is primarily at stake with this issue. For actual working ranches I could see the concerns with the public more frequently being in proximity to livestock as a legit concern that is more relatable than just not wanting the public to enjoy their lands so you can benefit/profit from the lack of human presence.

If corner crossing was officially recognized as acceptable I could sympathize with landowners getting additional support in enforcement of increased headaches like damaged fences, trash, and actual trespassing (people not crossing at actual corner, driving vehicles "over" corners, etc).

 

[204guy]

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.

That's some pretty twisted logic. In a checkerboard situation if the 2 private corners are owned by different entities can 1 sue the other because they allowed access to the public and now his private property is worth less because the public has access?

 

[Laramie]

That's some pretty twisted logic. In a checkerboard situation if the 2 private corners are owned by different entities can 1 sue the other because they allowed access to the public and now his private property is worth less because the public has access?

Again, I agree the public should have access to the land. I just think the average hunter is willing to throw landowners under the bus if it benefits them without considering their side of the issue. We are discussing them not having rights to control their property- as miniscule as it is, it is a fact. I just think we should think before passing judgement and consider all sides. Not all landowners are like the Elk Mountain Ranch and I really think most would be very reasonable if this situation were approached the right way.

 

[realunlucky]

Again, I agree the public should have access to the land. I just think the average hunter is willing to throw landowners under the bus if it benefits them without considering their side of the issue. We are discussing them not having rights to control their property- as miniscule as it is, it is a fact. I just think we should think before passing judgement and consider all sides. Not all landowners are like the Elk Mountain Ranch and I really think most would be very reasonable if this situation were approached the right way.

Again everyone at the corner deserves the same rights regardless of who the owner is.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Laramie]

Again everyone at the corner deserves the same rights regardless of who the owner is.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I want this as bad as the next guy... I just don't think they are going about it the right way.

 

[brocksw]

It's kind of funny if you take a step back and think about what this is about in simple form. Astonishing to think a few landowners have driven this to the point of litigation over a shoulder in "my airspace" or a boot touching my land for a couple seconds. All this, formed in soup of selfishness, greed, and a sense of entitlement to something that they do not solely own.

Silliness knows no bounds.

 

[realunlucky]

I want this as bad as the next guy... I just don't think they are going about it the right way.

Plenty of ways to do it. Could of just been added to the lease agreements but when those were written passage to those lands was taken for granted.

There was a reason the government keep every other section when the railroad act was authorized and it is very unlikely with this action Congress intented the other section owners to have the controlling interest.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[dukeball33]

For those on the side of landowners... How is stepping through airspace preventing the landowner from beneficially using said airspace or creating an interference with the enjoyment and use of the land thus constituting a "taking"? Not the presence of people on the public land (could fly a helicopter in to camp, hunt, hike under the current paradigm, I believe, if I so chose to do so), but the actual act of crossing that air space...

It is greed, in my opinion, and it is my opinion one can't objectively look at the situation otherwise.

A few legislators in WY propose a bill to address the situation through legistlation each year, and it always dies with no traction.

 

[204guy]

Again, I agree the public should have access to the land. I just think the average hunter is willing to throw landowners under the bus if it benefits them without considering their side of the issue. We are discussing them not having rights to control their property- as miniscule as it is, it is a fact. I just think we should think before passing judgement and consider all sides. Not all landowners are like the Elk Mountain Ranch and I really think most would be very reasonable if this situation were approached the right way.

I appreciate the optimism but I don't share it. Reasonable would be this is a non issue. We're here because most landowners that have corner locked pieces are a lot closer to EM than the other end of the spectrum. Many feel this way because it was sold to them as such. It's not settled law, that's why this and the other threads exist. You've said it yourself lands that have corner locked pieces appraise higher. That's a business risk buyers took. In all these corner discussions on forums over many years I've never once seen a landowner perspective that wasn't a ridiculous redhairing or flat greed.

 

[cnelk]

References to corner crossing and a neighbor building a deck/fence in town has no merit.

Two completely different things. Building Code and setbacks are already in place.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

I think the way waterways are handled is the most instructive. Assume a landowner who owns the land through which a navigable waterway runs. That landowner owns that land and the riverbed underneath, but it's been settled at this point that the landowner can't build a fence 3" above the waterline to prevent people from floating the river, or building a fence that crosses both banks and goes under the water to prevent a boat coming through, and if a tree falls into the water a landowner can't try to prosecute you for stepping onto the tree or onto the bank.

So what we have here is landowners building fences (or posts) to prevent people from accessing public land. For me, I don't see a difference in the application of the law or the solution. Ranchers don't have a right not to have people on public land adjacent to their cattle, or to profit from keeping people off adjacent public land, or to profit from offering exclusive access to public land.