24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 25 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 24 25
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
Originally Posted by sherm_61
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
Originally Posted by sherm_61
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
Originally Posted by Ranch13

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 believe very strongly in private property rights. I also believe in public lands being public and support corner crossing.

So are you willing to get into bed with BHA over it?



Nope

My stance exactly, you gotta pick between the lesser of 2 evils and in my opinion BHA is the Devil in sheep's clothing.Lands nice cushy 135,000- 145,000 salary and # 2 guys 100,000 + salary should tell people something.
Even Lands parent were heavily involved in " non- profit ' big money liberal organizations. Ed Bangs who was instrumental in the wolf reintroduction donated 20,000 to BHA it goes on and on.


I agree completely.

But I still think access should be guaranteed or they do a land swap with the state (if state land). I understand if federal it would be more complicated but it still ought to be. That or offered one time opportunity to buy it at market value cash only.


MAGA
BP-B2

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.

If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.



Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees?
interesting..


That is a welfare entitlement position.


One might make a pretty good argument that the stance some are taking on public land access is more of a welfare entitlement attitude..


the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to.
www.historicshooting.com
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,895
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,895
I dont know the answer but BHA isn't it.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.

If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.



Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees?
interesting..


That is a welfare entitlement position.


One might make a pretty good argument that the stance some are taking on public land access is more of a welfare entitlement attitude..


One could, and it is often made. I disagree though (obviously lol). Public is public land. It’s said “you want land to hunt buy it”. The converse is no less applicable. “You want to treat that land as your own then buy it”


MAGA
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
[quote=Ranch13][quote=BillyGoatGruff][
One could, and it is often made. I disagree though (obviously lol). Public is public land. It’s said “you want land to hunt buy it”. The converse is no less applicable. “You want to treat that land as your own then buy it”


Well maybe you could help me figure out one of the things that's always somewhat puzzled me? What is it about being a landowner that disqualifies the landowner from having the same claim to "public" lands as the average urbanite? And what is it about the average urbanite that gives them more claim to the "public" land than the landowner that dutifully pays the rental fee to the appropriate govt agency?


the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to.
www.historicshooting.com
IC B2

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 19,251
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by BillyGoatGruff
[quote=Ranch13][quote=BillyGoatGruff][
One could, and it is often made. I disagree though (obviously lol). Public is public land. It’s said “you want land to hunt buy it”. The converse is no less applicable. “You want to treat that land as your own then buy it”


Well maybe you could help me figure out one of the things that's always somewhat puzzled me? What is it about being a landowner that disqualifies the landowner from having the same claim to "public" lands as the average urbanite? And what is it about the average urbanite that gives them more claim to the "public" land than the landowner that dutifully pays the rental fee to the appropriate govt agency?



Interesting verbiage, and a misrepresentation. If you think paying a fee to run your cows on it entitles you to exclusive access, then I really don’t think it’s worth my time lol.


MAGA
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
No don't think it gives exclusive access. Just reading some of the comments here it would appear that being a landowner somehow relegates you to second class citizenship.


the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to.
www.historicshooting.com
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.

If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.



Wow so you're willing to foot the bill for the fight that will go on just to have public access to a 40 acre parcel of ground that's not much more than a pile of boulders and a few scrub juniper trees?
interesting..



Let me guess you have some of that prime land blocked up?


I do have a small piece of blm that is way up in the corner of a 700 acre parcel, that is surrounded by other deeded lands. The BlM for all practical purposes really isn't accessible from any direction, but to even get to it would take an easement across over a mile of private land. To follow the section lines to get to it from any direction would take a gawd awful lot of road building. That would require an EIS study, then there's the takings of private property that would need to be dealt with. Not to mention all the archeological study that would need be done and disturbed.. The fence to seperate the easement... And you think all that would be worth it just so you might see a deer or elk on it, that if one happened to be bedded on it would be long gone before you could even get with shooting distance of it?
Yeh best to think some of these things thru first...


I'm not advocating building roads to every stray piece of public land but if a fellow wants to walk across the boundary edge your land or cut a corner he should be allowed. That way it is accessible.


God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member


Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,715
W
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
W
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,715
While this is a difficult issue, the public should also be concerned about the huge blocks of public land that are locked up by private lands.. If you are interested, look northeast of Buffalo, Wyoming. There are thousands of acres of public land in one block locked up by private ranches. Several public access roads should be opened for folks to use this land.. But it is safely locked away from the public by Wyoming law.. West of Saratoga, we have the Overland ranch. Every other section is public land, but it is all off limits to anyone but the Overland people.. They used to have a phone # that said call for access!! Trouble was no one answered the phone..


Molon Labe
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right


I'm not advocating building roads to every stray piece of public land but if a fellow wants to walk across the boundary edge your land or cut a corner he should be allowed. That way it is accessible.


Well you have to see the lay of the land to understand I suppose.
It's a bit over a mile walk that gains a bit over 200 ft elevation from start to finish, not counting going over and down a couple of ridges. That mile of private land has more and better wildlife habitat than the BLM it's self. The edge of the BLM boundry is a little over 100 ft elevation above the deeded land. The BLM it's self has a 200+ ft elevation rise in less than an 1/8 of a mile.
You can try everything you can possibly think of to get to that BLM without being seen by anything that's bedded up there, but the odds are really against you.
In the 30 years of owning this particular pasture I only know of 1 deer and 1 antelope and 1 turkey, within 200 yards of the BLM it's self. There was a bowhunter and his wife from Kansas spent 2 weeks trying to get a deer or antelope on that, the closest shot he had was about 80 yards on my deeded lands. They had their camper parked in our yard and hooked up to my electricity. The last day of archery season he was packing up to head back to Kansas, I said why don't you take one of my rifles out tomorrow morning and at least fill one of your tags, but he declined saying he didn't shoot anything with rifle any more. I got a Christmas card from them that year, but haven't heard anything from them since.
So when you talk about allowing unfettered access to parcels like that, and knowing that most of the game will be seen on the way to that parcel, just how many of those folks are going to pass the shot , knowing they're only 1/2 way to the "public" land..
There are a whole slew of small BLM parcels just like this, in my county alone there is about 20K acres of blm with the largest piece being something around 280 acres.


the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to.
www.historicshooting.com
IC B3

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
We have strayed from corner crossing to landlocked I'm afraid.


That was very kind of you to help the fellow out that way.


God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member


Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,270
Well just keep in mind there are more ranchers like me, than there are Elk Mountain Ranch types, just as there are way more good hunters than miserable pieces of crap, but unfortunately the good ones on both sides way to often get over shadowed by the actions of the jack asses.
swinging a broad brush is seldom productive.


the most expensive bullet there is isn't worth a plug nickel if it don't go where its supposed to.
www.historicshooting.com
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
R
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by Remsen
Originally Posted by wytex
Originally Posted by Remsen
Originally Posted by Ranch13
Originally Posted by DLSguide
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.

Risk vs. reward....some savvy it, some don't.




440 U.S. 668 (1979)

End of story.


Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,786
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,786
What a tool the Leo sheep company case involved crossing a corner with vehicles...nothing at all to do with stepping from Public to public...

Keep trying matlock

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
R
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Originally Posted by BuzzH
What a tool the Leo sheep company case involved crossing a corner with vehicles...nothing at all to do with stepping from Public to public...

Keep trying matlock




If you think the Leo Sheep case was limited to vehicles, you need to find some better shill lawyers to feed you your talking points.


Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,313
L
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
L
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by Ranch13
[quote=DLSguide] 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.


The BHA lawyers know it's about 99% likely they will lose, since the legislature has clearly defined that the airspace above property is owned by the same entity that owns the property. It's impossible to pass through the corner without passing through the airspace. Anyone with an understanding of basic geometry can see this. This argument has already been laid out eloquently by the state AG.

There's really very little downside to losing a case for your client as long as you get paid and don't expect it to impact future work. A gofundme is a good way to ensure you'll get paid.

Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,313
L
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
L
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by ready_on_the_right
The Legislature should pass a bill requiring an easement access to ALL public land and enforce it.

If you want to buy land blocking a piece of public land, fine just realize their will be an easement down one side or the other.



Alternately, the state should not buy parcels to which it has no access, or sell the access to parcels it already has, and the problem goes away.

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 18,069
And instead of selling the "sweet" valleys and keeping the high ground that people don't want, just sell tracts that include both and the issue goes away. Take the bad with the good.


God, Family, and Country.
NRA Endowment Member


Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
R
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
R
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Originally Posted by Llama_Bob
Originally Posted by Ranch13
[quote=DLSguide] 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.


The BHA lawyers know it's about 99% likely they will lose, since the legislature has clearly defined that the airspace above property is owned by the same entity that owns the property. It's impossible to pass through the corner without passing through the airspace. Anyone with an understanding of basic geometry can see this. This argument has already been laid out eloquently by the state AG.

There's really very little downside to losing a case for your client as long as you get paid and don't expect it to impact future work. A gofundme is a good way to ensure you'll get paid.



I hear that the GoFundMe campaign has been reported for fraud, as the campaign alleges this is a legal gray area when, in fact, it's black and white. GoFundMe has a reputation for not being very good about shutting down fraud, but the more people who report the campaign, the more likely it will be that GoFundMe does the right thing.

You're 100% right that this is a very clear case of trespassing. The WY code is very clear (notwithstanding the BHA idiots claiming it's not) about the question and the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is no easement to be had (by necessity, reservation or otherwise) if the plan is to argue that the WY code somehow in conflict with the land grant scheme that created the checkerboards in that an easement was reserved when the land was sold to private parties.

While Ruth Buzzy is not afraid to contradict herself, or ignore black letter law, the only ones who are going to suffer from the Marxist in hunters' clothing are those who donate to their fraud and the private property landowners who have to deal with the illegal conduct that BHA encourages and funds.

There's a legal and legitimate way to deal with access to checkboard land areas, but BHA would rather abuse the legal system and try to lawfare their way around the obvious.


Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,786
B
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
B
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,786
It's not a black and white case. If that was anything close to reality then wardens would still cite for title 23 trespass to hunt. If it were such a clear cit case judge Castor wouldn't have found Kearney innocent of corner crossing. If it was so clear the Wyoming state AG wouldn't have written a legal opinion that it's not a trespassing violation under title 23. Doubtful the gf director would send out a memo to to every warden in the state saying they can't write a citation for it either

If it was so black and white a couple posters here wouldn't be pissing down both legs playing perry mason.

Litigating this type of case is as American as apple pie...it's how we do things.

Page 7 of 25 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 24 25

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
181 members (257 mag, 10Glocks, 300_savage, 2UP, 300jimmy, 01Foreman400, 15 invisible), 1,493 guests, and 837 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,592
Posts18,397,909
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.130s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9293 MB (Peak: 1.1144 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 09:56:59 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS