Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wyo corner crossing update

Thank you! That’s the honest answer that I knew would be ignored since IT SAYS EVERYTHING about this case.

I respect Idaho Shooter but this is a hot topic and after reading it earlier today, going to lunch, mowing and putting in more stuff in the garden I returned a few hours later and it went off the rails like I suspected it would. This issue is the one issue that I find him to be totally off base, wrong and thick-headed about….however wrong he is doesn’t change my high opinion of him. 😉

Bill, I totally agree, I just don’t see where opening up more ground to folks is a downside, unless you got exclusive access, outfitter. Etc.👊🏻

Exactly! It isn’t an issue unless you’re the greedyfucking landowner that “feels” he has special rights not granted to others…. and in that special right you have exclusive access to make money off PUBLIC land by ILLEGALLY preventing the PUBLIC use of THEIR LAND!

It’s greed, no different than the Tunstalls of a bygone era or the Lincoln County War where corruption and greed set against rule of law to take advantage of the “little guy”. Fu.ck them with a football bat!

I’d like to see Eshelman sent a bill for the property tax for the years he had exclusive access, a REFUND of the many various fees, permits and costs that the public bore during his exclusive use of OUR property and the forfeiture of his holdings if he can’t pay which will guarantee access to the public in perpetuity and send a message to the rest of those greedy snakes!

It’s gotta really hurt those scumbags to set a precedent that won’t be soon tested!

Lmfao😂😂

The landowner should be blocked from using public land he has the public locked from. It works both ways.

Tell me why shouldn't one or several legal hunters have access to public land? Any access obtained by ED is open to everyone, not just six hunters, and it isn't communism in any manner, shape, nor form to provide access to Public land to The Public.

You're reaching here. This is not a seizure of "all lands and businesses" by any stretch. It's a small measured remedy for a big original mistake.

Oh more common sense!!!thank you

Jud….The thing I notice most is how jealousy WE, those of us that NEED wilderness, guard OUR lands because we grew up with a freedom to roam that few know and even fewer understand. The Eshelman’s of this world know how contagious freedom is and they want us to pay them for the illusion they’re creating and illegally capitalizing on.

I have a feeling that you might understand how it feels to see a boat launch covered in crap only to spend hours cleaning up the messes of other careless slobs because it is FAR too IMPORTANT to guys like us to see those areas remain open instead of doing what the liberals want which is to close it ALL OFF to “consumptive users”.

Those of us that had literally more ground than we could cover in 3 lifetimes available to us for virtually any outdoor recreation imaginable. My children grew up cleaning up the crap from others because they will have to nurture and preserve that right.

Absolutely!

Yessir, it runs deep, as does killin mature Blacktail, Rosie’s, et;Al. Lotsa folks don’t even post on shiit like this cause they don’t wanna deal with the bullshiit. That aside, again, I’m all for more access for tax paying citizens. Period

Bill, a prime example is the vail tree farm. It’s the rear border of my property, cut my teeth killin bucks up there, now it’s limited, sells 900 access permits in 2 minutes!!! Fuuck!!

Making [bleep] up isn't putting it simply.

The law was aimed at stopping, not facilitating, what you are claiming.

§1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands
No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §3, 23 Stat. 322.)

Eminent domain can be used for a variety of things, not just utilities. The State can in some cases force easements where they deem necessary, though that process is quite the challenge on their part.


If you look hard enough, you will see how this ruling could be twisted to benefit a private party one day. Having said that, based on your responses, I believe you think I hold an opinion either way on how the case went or should have went, so I will stop responding to this thread. You can only lead the horse to water, you cannot force him to understand the future implications of land use law decisions.

You brought up that this could somehow grant eminent domain powers to utility companies per "power lines and the like" which is already the case.

Not seeing how the public gaining access to public land(in accordance with a law from 1885) which has been blocked by a private party is going to result in a private party being granted exclusive access to public land. This seems to be the total opposite of the latter.

"If you look hard enough, you will see how this ruling could be twisted to benefit a private party one day."

This is an easy statement to throw out, but can you back it up with a plausible example?

Idaho Shooter wants to base his argument on the Constitution...If Eshelman lived when the Constitution was written, and tried to do the same, at minimum he would have been tarred and feathered and carried out on a pole to be thrown into the river. Back then they would have told him wipe his ass with the Constitution. And they would have done the same to him if he called them a communist. And most likely few would have seen any error in their ways.

Constitutional law is constantly being clarified in the courts. Seems as if this decision, reverted back to the heart of the freedoms the Constitution granted to individuals..


Years ago a farmer thought it was his right to gut shoot every Deer in his cornfield, and the game laws gave hime the right to shoot every one. He had right on his side. However, the local boys took to overturning his truck when they would find it unattended, and left a note on how he can prevent it from happening again. Most likely the local boys today wouldn't be so committed to fixing a right that was being abused.

Class envy aside, I still don’t see why a landowner shouldn’t be allowed to build any fence he wants to the very last inch of his own property. If he can, then corner crossing is not guaranteed.

Fence better be entirely on their property.

Probably would make crossing easier tbh.

I don’t think the Constitution granted any right to individuals. It just recognized them and prohibited government from taking them away.

Recognized is the correct word.