Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game WY Corner crossing case

I presume it's not lawful to molest or destroy survey monuments in WYO.

I think all the western states have the same problem. This map is where we saw a bunch of elk a couple days ago. It's not a corner but they sure have you locked out of public land. The blue is state land, the white is private and posted on every fence post. Needless to say, the landowner also 'owns' the state land for all practical purposes. All we could do is sit at the gate and glass them. I don't know if it's true but I've heard that this landowner will let you hunt it for $1000.

Seems to be a couple of misconceptions rumbling thru here.
1. The ranches that have the bam, forest service, or school trust lands within the boundary of their private lands, do not get it for free. They pay leases to the controlling agencies, and maintain the land at their own expense. It ain't free.
2 . Many of these "landlocked" parcels and the trouble getting access to them stems more from either large money operations owning the "ranch" for their own little private hunting/fishing retreats, and often times the big kerfuffle on trespass stems from an outfitter that has leased the hunting rights on the private land.

Probably not many folks with enough gray hair around here to remember back when the Safari Club used to lease ranches, and post everything, and block roads...

I’m well aware that ranches pay for the leases of OUR public lands and while I agree that they do maintain that land they also use it to hopefully make a profit every year. This I have no problem with. When they treat it like it’s “their” land and don’t want any of the public to use it that’s what gets me.
Also regarding the “landlocked” parcels I understand how many of these came to be and don’t have really have a problem with it. If a parcel of public touches another parcel of public at a designated corner I don’t understand why public access is an issue.

Seems to be a couple of misconceptions rumbling thru here.
1. The ranches that have the bam, forest service, or school trust lands within the boundary of their private lands, do not get it for free. They pay leases to the controlling agencies, and maintain the land at their own expense. It ain't free.
2 . Many of these "landlocked" parcels and the trouble getting access to them stems more from either large money operations owning the "ranch" for their own little private hunting/fishing retreats, and often times the big kerfuffle on trespass stems from an outfitter that has leased the hunting rights on the private land.

Probably not many folks with enough gray hair around here to remember back when the Safari Club used to lease ranches, and post everything, and block roads...

Many of these ranches are no longer family owned. They've been bought out by big money, people like Bill Gates and the Koch brothers, 2 of the biggest landowners in the US. Their decisions are made from an office in a big city high rise, not by the guy in the cowboy hat out feeding cattle. They aren't the people who you want making the decisions affecting your outdoor recreation.

The easiest way to solve the issue, would be in instances where the "public" land is unfenced from the private land, would be to set 4 posts on each corner providing a 4ft or smaller access across the corner from the "public" to the "public", and then increase the trespass fine to something on the order of 2000$, that way it might ensure that the "public" doesn't "inadvertently wander off onto the private land. But then again somebody is going to have to pay for the posts at the current price of about 7$ a pop, not counting the labor expense to get the survey right and the posts and signage installed.
I do find it interesting that the story goes a Game Warden watched the whole thing, and didn't issue a trespass citation, they can and do do that. Seems to me if he/she saw no trespassing going on it would be a simple matter to have him testify in court, the case would be dismissed and no need for a go fund me page. Supposedly the same 4 "hunters" got in the same pickle with the same "landowner" the year before. I'm thinking there's probably a bit more to this than what is cruising around on the internet, and it will be interesting to see what does come about, when it gets to court..
It's a damn shame that the money involved in "hunting" in these modern times is pitting "sportsmen" against landowners. I wonder when TR used the antiquities laws to bust the part of the constitution clearly defining what land the federal government can own, even had a clue as to the nasty mess that would follow 100 and some years down the road.

Snivel and whine all you want. There is a bonded and legal agreement to the possession of the right to lease public land for agricultural use. Too bad you don't like it, but that is just the way it is. Stay off or go buy or lease your own damn land and then you can let everyone on for a big picnic.

Surface Leasing


B. Procedure for Leasing the Surface of Trust Lands


viii. Additional considerations
(i.) Posting against trespassers
“Any leaseholder of sixteenth section land, or land granted in lieu thereof, shall be authorized to
post such land against trespassers; provided that such posting shall not prohibit the inspection of
said lands by individuals responsible for the management or supervision thereof acting in their
official capacity.” Miss. Code Ann. Section 29-3-54.

The Game Warden can only write a civil trespassing ticket. This was a criminal trespassing ticket thus the Sheriff being called.
Also the hunters have taken a few elk from this public land so I’m sure that has got something to do with it.

If the BLM really gave a darn they would be doing land swaps or condemning 6’ wide easements into any public parcel greater than 500 acres that was landlocked. I’m fine with no vehicle walk in access only but no access is idiotic.