Wyoming corner crossing

timstl said:
Unless I'm missing something, it seems like the Waypoint 6 issue should be pretty open and shut. It seems fairly absurd. Your guess is correct, but it's even easier than that with OnX, GoHunt, and I assume most mapping software: You don't have to enter any coordinates, you just touch on the screen, so it's simple to create waypoints where you haven't been. I have *many* Waypoints on my phone of places I never set foot -- both public and private land. Some were intentional (spotted animal while glassing) and some were not (just accidentally clicked the incorrect spot). Not sure how a waypoint could be twisted into proof of trespass.
Click to expand...
Exactly and even simpler there is a "Date Created" data point attached to the waypoint. Prove where you were when that was made and you're done. "Your honor, I was at church on March 6th and I started scouting because the sermon was boring that day.."
 
I copied this from another site....


Here is a great post from someone who deals with these legal issues professionally. His post is spot on.

“I have not yet read the ruling but will offer general context. I will try to track down the actual ruling and give other thoughts later. (if you already have it post a link or PM it)

This is a case arising out of federal diversity jurisdiction and a federal question. This means the federal court is charged with applying WY state law as applied by the Supreme Court of WY, and federal law as applied by the federal courts on different issues within the case. That means appeals could go in several directions.

On matters of state law, a federal district court's ruling is NOT binding precedent on any state court at any level. It is binding in that specific federal court geography alone and even then only on federal law matters.

If the parties believe the federal court misinterpreted state law they can appeal to the WY Supreme Court. If they believe the federal legal approach to applying the state law, or the interpretation of the federal law elements, were wrong they can go to the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The 10th circ. can reverse but even that is not binding on any state court - but is binding on federal matters in the variety of states under 10th circuit (this does not include MT or ID for example).

If a WY state supreme court ruling or the 10th circ ruling is unacceptable appeals can be made to SCOTUS - a SCOTUS ruling is binding on all state and federal courts.

Also, depending on the specific ruling, there may be state by state legislative responses that could muddy the waters for hunters. It is also not clear that criminal trespass was at issue - this was a civil case and the outcomes could (shouldn't but could) vary.

If I was a checkerboard land owner outside of WY, I would pay this landowner not to appeal - just let it sit in WY. Failure to appeal does not add any authority to a ruling so it is not uncommon for folks with broad interests to let district court rulings sit rather than expanding the problem.

So, congratulations to all those involved in a great win, but this is not yet a simple get-out-of-jail-free card across the west. For now, it is best viewed as yet to be appealed "persuasive authority". A long way from established law - but a nice first step.”
 
cnelk said:
I copied this from another site....


Here is a great post from someone who deals with these legal issues professionally. His post is spot on.

“I have not yet read the ruling but will offer general context. I will try to track down the actual ruling and give other thoughts later. (if you already have it post a link or PM it)

This is a case arising out of federal diversity jurisdiction and a federal question. This means the federal court is charged with applying WY state law as applied by the Supreme Court of WY, and federal law as applied by the federal courts on different issues within the case. That means appeals could go in several directions.

On matters of state law, a federal district court's ruling is NOT binding precedent on any state court at any level. It is binding in that specific federal court geography alone and even then only on federal law matters.

If the parties believe the federal court misinterpreted state law they can appeal to the WY Supreme Court. If they believe the federal legal approach to applying the state law, or the interpretation of the federal law elements, were wrong they can go to the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. The 10th circ. can reverse but even that is not binding on any state court - but is binding on federal matters in the variety of states under 10th circuit (this does not include MT or ID for example).

If a WY state supreme court ruling or the 10th circ ruling is unacceptable appeals can be made to SCOTUS - a SCOTUS ruling is binding on all state and federal courts.

Also, depending on the specific ruling, there may be state by state legislative responses that could muddy the waters for hunters. It is also not clear that criminal trespass was at issue - this was a civil case and the outcomes could (shouldn't but could) vary.

If I was a checkerboard land owner outside of WY, I would pay this landowner not to appeal - just let it sit in WY. Failure to appeal does not add any authority to a ruling so it is not uncommon for folks with broad interests to let district court rulings sit rather than expanding the problem.

So, congratulations to all those involved in a great win, but this is not yet a simple get-out-of-jail-free card across the west. For now, it is best viewed as yet to be appealed "persuasive authority". A long way from established law - but a nice first step.”
Click to expand...
So your copied poster didn't read the ruling, and then you summarized off thier generic generalization?

Nice

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
The whole 32 page pdf is over on hunt talk. I tried to post it here but got a message that it is too large.
 
realunlucky said:
So your copied poster didn't read the ruling, and then you summarized off thier generic generalization?

Nice

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"OK - I have read the court's ruling and it really couldn't have been any better for public land hunters in WY. He framed the issue in a way that will make it tricky for WY Supreme Court or WY legislature to mess with its core holding - that Mackay & Buford apply and that where there is no other reasonable manner to access federal lands, that the allowance of non-destructive passing over of a private owner's portion air space of a corner is not trespass as a matter of law - a baked-in limitation on the property right to begin with.

So, subject to appeal, this is good law in WY federal courts.

But the court was careful and purposeful in the ruling - this is not a free pass through all corners for any reason and any manner. If there was another less convenient route it is unlikely this court would have allowed it. If the hunters had done damage to the private land this court would have found the other way. Under this ruling, folks need to be careful in finding the actual corners and step over with some care. I don't think just blundering through "close enough" gets it done as this is a judge-made exception to private property rights and I imagine they will keep the exception slim.

The court also said that violation of UIA excused any incidental trespass necessary to get around violations of the UIA. Since merely touching the posts was minor this was an easy call, but if they had cut the chains or pulled out the posts, etc it might have not been as simple. Again here, the defendants' cautious behavior went a long way in setting up a favorable outcome.

As for appeal - I see no real reason to try WY Supreme Court given the federal spin the ruling pushed. So if landowner appeals it will be to 10th circ. I would guess the outcome on this will have a lot to do with which 3 judge panel gets pulled to hear it, as a reasonable court could certainly affirm, but a reasonable court also decide Mackay is not binding on 10th circuit, it is not sufficiently persuasive to "trample" private property rights and that the district court wrongly distinguished it from Leo.

If a 3 judge panel reverses, then there can be an en banc request (to re-hear with all judges of the circuit) and/or SCOTUS request. Only if it gets to SCOTUS and survives does this effect folks outside of federal courts in WY (or 10th circ depending on that ruling) and state courts."
 
ClearCreek said:
If people (hunters and anglers) would have been "respectful towards landowners" for the last 50 years we likely would not be in the current situation when it comes to landowner relations.


ClearCreek
Click to expand...
I disagree.

If landowners would have been respectful of public lands and it's many lawful users, instead of treating it like an extension of their own private property we wouldn't be in the current situation we are in.

The biggest checkerboarded ranches are two-for-one land grabs where the owner gets control of 2X the land and pays half the taxes. Anybody who says otherwise likely has a special interest to preserve.
 
bozeman said:
I hope ppl are respectful this fall towards land owners and do not flaunt this…….
Click to expand...
Flaunting this towards landowners has nothing to do with it. There has been a lot of people who have used the threat of trespassing regarding corner crossing to intimidate and run people off public land. Well the shoes on the other foot now!
Be respectful, actually cross at corners, don’t meander across private land then say you used the corner, and remember, they have to prove you trespassed not the other way around.
If I had to take a guess 98% of landowners have no idea where the true corner of their property is. Fence posts don’t count.
 
^^^ disagree, they know where their corners are, they put up fences where it works easiest in some spots, have for years.
I do agree with your comment on the shoe on the other foot now, yes some have falsely told folks to leave but GPS has pretty much put an end to that these days.
Wyoming does have a law going into affect in July that addresses trespass for hunting and antler gathering. Don't cross private at any other than the corner to get access or you will get ticketed.
 
We are where we are with the issue. In reading opinions, on both sides, of how we got here, biases seem to be evident.

What amazes me about this case, much like other societal issues in the US today, is how people are viewing the case. While i see both sides of the case, and if applied nationally, potentially could permit access to more land for me. Yet, I'm not that impassioned about how it turns out. Why? Because either way, I can make things work just fine as I always have. It might take more work, but I'm willing to do that for my passion of hunting.

The fact we as a nation and even as sportsmen seem to want to seperate ourselves into our own little identity groups and tell others how superior we are (and indirectly how inferior others are) isn't the way i like to do business.

I can easily figure out why i may be different than others. What seems more wise and certainly has potential for better understanding and cooperation is to first seek out the similarities and what we have in common. From there it seems the difference and disagreements are easier to workout, in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

Dwelling on how we got here from an opinion of differences that is dividing only assures more division and doesn't seem helpful for establishing solutions.
 
insanelupus said:
Dwelling on how we got here from an opinion of differences that is dividing only assures more division and doesn't seem helpful for establishing solutions.
Click to expand...

Actually, knowing how you got into a predicament is pretty helpful information when trying to establish solutions for one.

I do appreciate your Zen-like vibe though ✌️
 
Actually, knowing how you got into a predicament is pretty helpful information when trying to establish solutions for one.
Click to expand...

Establishing facts of a case to understand how a predicament arose is quite valuable for establishing solutions.

Dwelling on how we got here from an opinion of differences that is dividing only assures more division and doesn't seem helpful for establishing solutions..
Click to expand...

My statement earlier was focused on dwelling upon opinions of differences which are dividing. I'll stand by that statement, that such divisive opinions serves to divide people further and does not seem to be helpful for establishing solutions.
 
A few questions. Can you now just step over the corner to another? Is the ladder needed? If not I see a lot of injuries coming.

Also couldn’t the private land owner just put up a say 8 foot section of fence, only 4 feet by 4 feet in his land of the corner be good under the lease still but in reality blocking access?

There needs to be a mandated public access. Maybe 2 foot wide walkthrough
 
Spence1875 said:
A few questions. Can you now just step over the corner to another? Is the ladder needed? If not I see a lot of injuries coming.

Also couldn’t the private land owner just put up a say 8 foot section of fence, only 4 feet by 4 feet in his land of the corner be good under the lease still but in reality blocking access?

There needs to be a mandated public access. Maybe 2 foot wide walkthrough
Click to expand...
Judge says they didn't trespass by touching his fence posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

go_deep
Wyoming Corner Crossing, LEGAL!
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
3K
nodakian
nodakian
cnelk
Colorado Corner Crossing Legislation - HB23-1066
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Chumsnagger
Chumsnagger
Kyle C
Wyoming feed stations are a breeding ground for Disease/CWD. Thoughts?
Replies
17
Views
1K
spike camp
S
schlumpyj
Round 2: Wyoming Corner Crossing
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
Forestryguy
F
B
WY Corner crossing update
16 17 18
Replies
358
Views
31K
wapitibob
W

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top