On the stream access issue, until last year, anyone who owned river/stream front property without public ground access had exclusive use/access to the water. Many of theses properties spent a bunch of money on fisheries projects and had world class fishing and profited from leases and or had water to themselves. People paid a premium for exclusive use that they no longer have.
The corner crossing issue is the same, people paid a premium for exclusive use of XXX amount of acres that they may now have only X. A lot of these properties were paying a low lease fee for the public ground, but in essence we’re able to utilize it as private. I know of 2 places that this will open up large tracts of public ground that outfitters are now paying a trespass fee to cross the deeded and pretty much have exclusive use of the public ground. The outfitters still have the advantage of the road systems that the public hunter wont have, but one of the properties I guarantee he won’t be in there alone anymore.
Thats all a steaming load of bullchit and you know it.
Stream access does not lower property values, I heard that same nonsense crap when myself and others pursued and passed stream access in Montana. The real estate agents, outfitters, landowenrs all crying the blues about their property value. My own family had several hundred feet of river access on the Blackfoot river at the time as well. You show me any piece of property in Montana with river/stream frontage that has declined in value since stream access was passed. Here's the facts, the ones that actually matter, that kind of property is worth more now than it ever has been. That includes the property we owned on the Blackfoot, its done nothing but increase in value since it was purchased. Those making the claim that the river frontage properties were full of crap then, and they're still full of crap now. Same thing in New Mexico, and probably more so as the amount of river/stream frontage property is even more desireable in New Mexico than Montana.
Same with corner crossing. James Rinehart, a local turncoat real estate agent in Laramie was paid by Eschelman to testify to the "loss of value" on Elk Mountain Ranch due to corner crossing. He said he would be forced to list his ranches for 30-40% less if corner crossing became lega here. I checked his ranch listing last night, if that's the case, then he either has a slow IT department, or he's a liar. I'm going with a lying piece of chit, his ranches have not been listed for a penny less even after corner crossing becoming legal in Wyoming.
This loss of property value is a strawman arguement, a total lie, and without any merit. I heard the same thing when hunters in Montana fought successfully to be able to hunt State lands there. Those property values didn't decrease a thin dime in value either.
Finally, even IF, their land values were to decrease, I simply don't care. IF that were to happen, perhaps its unwise to purchase a property based on the value of something you don't own and is, in fact, held in trust for the State/United States citizens. When you base your land value on a perceived notion that you own something that doesn't belong to you, don't be surprised when you find out the actual owners have a much different idea.
The good guys won this case, and Frankly the days of the Wealthy land barons getting their way on stream access and public land access are over, they're finished.
