So what prevents ranchers or land owners to put up tall elaborate fences at these corners to stop people crossing over?
Nothing really , except for the money it would cost to build the fences. Several years ago something like that happened south west of Rawlins. A ranch did go into their deeded land in the checker board and built fences. The lawsuits and furry that followed for years afterwards are somewhat mind boggling. The Wy legislature has been wrestling back and forth with this corner crossing stuff for a couple of decades now. This thing with the BHA and Elk Mountain ranch may ignite a firestorm, bigger than the BHA realizes, and it may not go quite as well as they hope. Which I'm thinking it may not be the slam dunk they think it's going to be otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the go fund me thing. I mean after all we saw posted above here that the people being charged have retained solid Wyoming Attorneys who will be taking on the lowly public lawyers in the Carbon County DA's office.... At some point people that believe in private property rights are going to say enough is enough, and there's already a ground swell building out there that the socialist/communist among us aren't seeing.
I don't know the Carbon County folks, but I do a lot of work with state Attorneys General as well as local prosecutors and you'd be surprised at how good they can be. A few months back I was prepping the Arkansas AG for a big case at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and we had two former US solicitor generals (the guys who argue cases on behalf of the US before the Supreme Court) to rattle the AG in a moot court type of exercise. This one AG took on the barrage from some really experienced government attorneys and prevailed, and then went on to demolish the other side at the hearing. I have no idea who the four WY attorneys the BHA shill referred to, but I'd not underestimate what the Carbon County DA can do.
As an example of how wrong the BHA idiot is, consider this. Here's what the BHA mouthpiece claimed: "Civil trespass is not going to be written as the landowner has to prove "damages" to his property via the trespass. Since stepping from one piece of public to another piece of public, in NO WAY damages the adjoining landowner the result of a court case would be a claim of ZERO in punitive damage. "
The fact is that courts allow punitive damages in cases like this even if the only other damages that can be shown are nominal damages. For example, this excerpt from a case that discusses both the caselaw and the Restatement of Torts (the guiding principles for cases like this):
Second, a number of courts in states that follow the District's rule on the availability of punitive damages make an exception to this rule in cases of intentional trespass. These courts have ruled that "proof of the trespass creates a presumption that some minimal damage was sustained and that such a presumption will satisfy the rule requiring a showing of actual damages as a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages." 2 Modern [*78] Tort Law: Liability and Litigation § 21:49 (2d ed.). For example, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff does not need to show actual damages to support an award of punitive damages in a case of intentional trespass to land because "the law presumes that a plaintiff has been damaged [**5] without the necessity of proof of actual damage." Rhodes v. Harwood, 273 Ore. 903, 544 P.2d 147, 158 (Or. 1975) (citing Prosser, Law of Torts 66, § 13 (4th ed. 1971)).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the general rule precluding punitive damages without compensatory damages does not apply to cases of intentional trespass to land, which "causes actual harm to the individual, regardless of whether that harm can be measured in mere dollars." Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, 209 Wis. 2d 605, 622, 563 N.W.2d 154 (1997). The "actual harm" in an intentional trespass is "not in the damage done to the land, which may be minimal, but in the loss of the individual's right to exclude others from his or her property and . . . this right may be punished by a large damage award despite the lack of measurable harm." Id. at 617. The court therefore upheld an award of $1.00 in nominal damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
Although this is a question of first impression in the District of Columbia, the Court finds this rationale persuasive. The proposition that an award of nominal damages will support an award of punitive damages in a "harmless intentional trespass" action is also supported by the Restatement:
The [**6] fact that the actor knows that his entry is without the consent of the possessor and without any other privilege to do so, while not necessary to make him liable, may affect the amount of damages recoverable against him, by showing such a complete disregard of the possessor's legally protected interest in the exclusive possession of his land as to justify the imposition of punitive in addition to nominal damages for even a harmless trespass, or in addition to compensatory damages for one which is harmful.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 163 cmt. e. The Restatement reiterates this position under the punitive damages section: "[A]n award of nominal damages . . . is enough to support a further award of punitive damages, when a tort, such as trespass to land, is committed for an outrageous purpose, but no significant harm has resulted." Id. § 908 cmt. c.
A Wyoming court is going to follow the same rationale.
I generally focus my fights against another scumbag organization that lies about what they are really up to (the ACLU), but I may have to drop a note to the Carbon County DA to see if they'd like any help fighting the ugly and stupid sister of the ACLU, BHA.
Wow, you'll be fighting sportsmen and women in Wyoming, not the BHA.
Nope, it's BHA doing this. The sportsmen and women of Wyoming probably have the same opinion of BHA starting sh*t as I do. You know that line about drawing first blood....it applies to law as well.
BHA doesn't respect or even support private property rights. Like many have said, there are a number of very legitimate ways to deal with this problem, and the WY legislature is the right place to go. Shakedown groups like BHA want to eliminate private property rights and have a demonstrated history of fighting against the interests of actual sportspeople.
Nope, the EM folk called the county attorney 15 times in a day to whine about 4 hunters crossing from one piece of public to another piece of public after they illegally posted public land and harassed the 4 hunters.
It won't be you deciding who's right and who's wrong...if, and that's a big if, it goes to court we'll find out.
Nothing for sportsmen to lose...plenty for that particular landowner to lose.
