Wyoming corner crossing lawsuit

[S.Clancy]

You can’t cross a corner post without touching anything.
If the state put in a proper walk way it would be a little different.

That's not true, at least in respect to terrestrial things. The argument against corner crossing has always come down to the "private" airspace

 

[cnymuzguy]

Interesting conversation. I can see the hunters and ranchers sides. Seem like the state/feds have dropped the ball.

 

[Zappaman]

Interesting conversation. I can see the hunters and ranchers sides. Seem like the state/feds have dropped the ball.

State and Feds don't do anything until they have too Not a really a criticism here, just the way "agencies" work- they "react" to public opinion (just like the politicians who "look" over them

This kind of stuff (with BLM allotties) has been going on since time (in the USA) began

 

[Bull_n_heat]

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 Louisiana Purchase? The Alaska Purchase?

 

[Laramie]

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

That's a good point I hadn't considered. Maybe I'm a little overly sensitive in this political environment but anything that even resembles loss of rights has me questioning it. I need to do more research. Thanks

 

[Rjsand70]

...The Louisiana Purchase? The Alaska Purchase?

Yes because aquiring a large chunk of the United States pre statehood from another country is very similar to this situation, super helpful input.

 

[nodakian]

I haven’t read all posts on both threads, so forgive me if this is repetitive.

I struggle to see why it’s ok for Landowner 1 to prevent Landowner 2 from accessing 2’s land while paying a small fee for only a specific use, and while using all of 2’s land for more than the use for which 1 paid. Did 2 really agree to this? Or did they simply not talk about and 1 is taking liberties? Would any of us agree to be 2?

I’m no fan of government, and private property rights are critical. However, because government is supposed to be a steward for ALL of us, they need to get on board and figure out how to handle access to land that belongs to ALL of us. If 1 wants full use of 2’s land, he should buy it at full market value.

The current situation appears to be effectively a taking or adverse possession by private owners, with the only hiccup being that private parties can’t actually make a legal claim of adverse possession against the government.

Thank goodness the Dakotas took advantage of the section line easement offer by the feds at statehood.

 

[Zappaman]

Most landowners AND hunters are some of the BEST people you'll meet- a cut above the average (in general). This is why this took so long to come to the front.

It's the 80/20 rule where a FEW lands owners AND hunters feel some kind of entitlement they do not have the right to. But they DO... and it's finally getting to the point that this incident needed to happen, get some press, and hopefully get a fair resolution- for both parties. Then we can all get back to ranching and hunting

 

[Pro953]

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.

Understood. My comment was related to the concerns for devaluation of the property, not concerning the specific act of crossing the property and if it is/is not trespass.

That said, I would argue a fixed installation such as a deck or giant 30x50 fence os a different animal than a point of access.

From a private property standpoint I actually agree and have stated in the past that I believe corner crossing is technically trespassing. I would love it to be written in a way that makes it legal/allowed. That said I believe someone’s property rights exceed just the surface rights and the softening of private property rights it’s not something to take lightly.

That said many times in the past we have made the decision as a country to create and preserve public lands and legal decisions to erode our rights to access and use public lands is also something we should not take lightly.

This really all harkens back to the decisions made in the early 1900’s when the concept of public land was just blooming. What is the balance of preservation of public space for all to enjoy and at the same time protect Commerical interests and private property rights. It’s a issue we have struggled with for the last 100 years. This is just one of the current battles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Yes because aquiring a large chunk of the United States pre statehood from another country is very similar to this situation, super helpful input.

Ok then... schools? Roads? Shooting Ranges?

The point being, the government (or governments depending on what level) has a long history of purchasing lands for the public's good. Maybe the days of government entities acquiring large tracts of land has lapsed, but the point is that the track record exists.

Now to the issue of accessing lands that are currently publicly held, and corner abutments specifically, I buy the argument that crossing airspace is technically trespassing, but also like Actual_Cryptid's comment below and tend to agree that barring some tangible loss to the landowner technical trespassing isn't legal trespassing.

"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"

I'll be following this closely. In either case, I hope we get a ruling that has some broader meaning than the EM Ranch against these for guys. Would be good to get some clarity on this issue.

 

[camelcluch]

Sorry I started this then left due to sickness. Access is an issue everywhere. I have had issues here in Colorado. The corner crossing to me is an argument of air. It would be similar to people walking down your street and holding their arm over your property line. There is no violation and no expectation to privacy. The same rancher that is complaining mostly likely violates several other laws in his landownership. I hope this all gets ironed out and access is clearly defined.

 

[npm352]

I hope the hunters prevail, but I fear if they do it won't have the ramifications many here would like to see.

Wyoming in particular has trespass laws that are extremely landowner-friendly at the expense of regular Joes. As an example, in Wyoming landowners actually own the river bottom of navigable rivers. You cannot even legally drop an anchor if the half of the river you are on is private. Legislators are often landowners or those in the good ol boys network with landowners so those making the laws make them to benefit themselves and those with influence and money.

That being said, if the hunters prevail, it will set a precedent that may last a hunting season or until the wealthy landowners head to the legislatures and demand the law be clear and corner crossing be explicitly outlawed.

 

[Rjsand70]

I hope the hunters prevail, but I fear if they do it won't have the ramifications many here would like to see.

Wyoming in particular has trespass laws that are extremely landowner-friendly at the expense of regular Joes. As an example, in Wyoming landowners actually own the river bottom of navigable rivers. You cannot even legally drop an anchor if the half of the river you are on is private. Legislators are often landowners or those in the good ol boys network with landowners so those making the laws make them to benefit themselves and those with influence and money.

That being said, if the hunters prevail, it will set a precedent that may last a hunting season or until the wealthy landowners head to the legislatures and demand the law be clear and corner crossing be explicitly outlawed.

Yes damn the wealthy rancher!

 

[jmez]

Hunters are not going to win this fight.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[Djacker]

Hunters are not going to win this fight.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Not with an attitude like that. It's worth the fight.

 

[Bighorner]

Yes because aquiring a large chunk of the United States pre statehood from another country is very similar to this situation, super helpful input.

The United states has always been rich in land. We paid for our war for independence with land. We did not have a monetary way to pay soldiers and officers what we did have was a frontier that the government could exchange service for deeds. As we moved west the incentive to settle the frontier was the homestead act, mining acts, and Grant's associated with the rail roads. Again the United states was using land as currency. The government also had the foresight to not relinquish every acre of land. We keep forest reserves and strategic oil reserves, you may have recently head about the later. We ended up with random federal land during the dust bowl, when homesteaders were not able to make a living on the land they owned and there was no one to buy it. That's how we wind up with split estate. Or the land was never homesteader in the first place because it was not suitable for agriculture. It is all relative to how we got to where we are involving access and the public land survey system. Thank you to anyone that actually made it through all of that.

 

[Cahunter805]

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.

That’s because all the Realtors have made it such a niche market and know they can list properties like that for more. I personally have no problem with property owners and ranches that have landlocked lands. They bought all the private and if there is landlocked land with it so be it.
Corner crossing is a vastly different issue though.

 

[wind gypsy]

Yes because aquiring a large chunk of the United States pre statehood from another country is very similar to this situation, super helpful input.

You’re the one that has referenced “government buying land” as a bad thing. The land in question has been public land since bought in the Louisiana purchase.

 

[Laramie]

That’s because all the Realtors have made it such a niche market and know they can list properties like that for more. I personally have no problem with property owners and ranches that have landlocked lands. They bought all the private and if there is landlocked land with it so be it.
Corner crossing is a vastly different issue though.

I would agree if there wasn't legal precedent. Not saying that can't be changed, not saying it's right, and don't necessarily agree with it. However it is good to view all sides of am argument.

 

[Newtosavage]

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.

You saved me a lot of typing right there. This is all spot-on.