Why have corner crossings been unavailable for the last 150 years? For prospecting, for grazing, for home steading.
Pretty simple, because it is a violation of private property rights, a taking of the owners' deeded properties, thus against the law.
The law under discussion was written to keep land barons from running home steaders off of public lands, often times which the land baron had previously used for grazing. Range wars were fought and people died over such disputes.
It hasn't been against the law, that's the problem you don't understand or have even read the law regarding the UIA and how its been applied in pertinent case law. You'd be better off pulling your pants down so we can read your lips while you're talking out of your ass. In fact, if you read some of the UIA case law, it not only assures other landowners the RIGHT to cross at corners, but their private property as well for moving livestock onto BLM leaes. That's why the UIA was passed into law, pretty simple. Further, another landowner in Wyoming constructed fences that impeded a pronghorn migration in Carbon County Wyoming and was found guilty of UIA violations as well, he had to remove the fences. This law applies broadly to access, the judge in this case cited the UIA both in preliminary hearings as well as the summar judgement. You don't understand the law. I've talked with a few dozen attorneys by phone, email, zoom calls as well as 14 law professors about the UIA and what it does and doesn't do. You're assertions and interpretation are flat wrong, THAT SIMPLE. Also, if someone else owns the mineral rights under your surface rights, they absolutey can not only "cross" your land they can develop it for mineral extraction, build roads, and otherwise develop the surface.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Every one of you guys (except Buzzy) bitch and moan about modern judges legislating from the bench. Justifiably so.
Until you personally have something to gain from the change in ruling. Then great! Legislate on!
What a bunch of hypocrites!
Judge Skavdahl did not "legislate" from the bench. He applied applicapble State and Federal law, cited case history, and wrote a 32 page summary judgement. What new law did he "legislate"? I'll tell you how many, ZERO. Its more than apparent you don't understand how the legal system works, I suggest maybe 7th-8th grade level civics and even a remote amount of comprehension will solve your problem with your obvious confusion.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
As I have said many times here. You have every right to be on such lands. You don't have a right to cross private land to get there. Fortunately, modern technology gives us means to do the former without doing the latter.
If it is important enough to you.....hire that helicopter.
Absolutely, but there is no reason to hire a helicopter or airplane when you can legally step from one piece of public property to another piece of public property over a corner. Totally landlocked I would agree, but corner crossin has never been illegal in Wyoming, nor legal, until now. It was a "gray" area of the law that had not been tested. Although the States Attorney General did release a legal opinion in 2004 stating that corner crossing to hunt was NOT a violation of title 23, trespass to hunt. That was preceded by the Kearney case, where Judge Robert Castor sided with a deer hunter that crossed a corner to hunt deer. However, in that same AG opinion, Crank did say that corner crossing MAY still be a civil or criminal offense. The reason he said, "may" is because it had never been tested under the law. Eshelman did us all a favor and put it to the test, BHA and 4 hunters from Missouri called his bluff.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
If there is so much landlocked terrain, and so incredibly much game on those lands? Hell, a whole new industry could grow up around charter flights, and outfitters to cater to the hunters.
Such charter service already exists for many wilderness areas.
Otherwise, if you want to cross a man's property, pay what HE asks for the privilege. Just as you would expect on your own property at home.
I don't care if a man owns 10,000 sq feet, or 10 million acres, whether it is valued at $10/acre or $1,000,000/sq ft. Every sq ft is just as sancrosanct.
I fully expect the Supremes to reverse this decision. If it gets there before Biden and his ilk can pack the courts.
This makes no sense, why would anyone pay someone for something they don't own? Just because a nearby public land area has some private lands that border it, I'm not going to pay the private land owners to access MY public lands that I have a legal right to access. That's just stupid.
As to your statement that the SCOTUS will reverse judge Skavdahls ruling, again, simply not based in truth. If, and I hope it is appealed, the 10th circuit will most certainly uphold his ruling. All that can be argued on appeal is that Skavdahl didn't apply the law correctly in his summary judgement. Further, after having talked to dozens of lawyers/law professors, they all come to the same conclusion that this case is solid, surely through the 10th and will not even be heard by the SCOTUS. The window is very narrow for it to make it past the 10th, but more than likely will be heard there.
All this is just great news for public land owners, th genie is out of the bottle, and other state Legislatures and public land access groups are going to continue to gain access to our public lands.
A thing of beauty, and the all important fact that given the right case, and a handful of dedicated people workign for a worthy cause can make monumental changes for the good of every U.S. Citizen that puts a high value on public land access.
