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

Who is Fred Eshelman? Good guy or bad guy?


https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-landowner-gave-millions-to-conservatives-conservation/

Should they lose? No, because the value should have never been there. Will this affect future sales and pricing of some properties? Absolutely.

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.

No it won't...not a penny and that's a fact.

Only because they overpaid, for something that wasn't for sale.

On purpose.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

That’s BS and you know it.

I have no idea of Montana land values and wasn’t/won’t speak to them. The stream access ruling in NM will/has affected values in areas. The ruling was right and long over due, but to argue it has no affect on pricing in NM is ludicrous. People paid a premium to have exclusive use of waterfront property that they no longer have. Some LO,s were receiving 5 digit yearly leases for exclusive use that is no longer sellable. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a once income producing property that is no longer an income producing property will lose value.

I would agree, but it doesn’t change what I said.

It is the Unlawful Inclosures Act which prevents a landowner from building such a fence at this specific type of corner configuratuon.

Oregon here. Streams are open as long as the public remains within the high-water line or can float it in a boat. No one can own ocean beach front. Corners are fair game.

According to some interpretations, which seems to be what all the hoopla is about.

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.



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.




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.


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.

Buzzy’s job as an anti gun BHA rep is to go on sportsmen’s forums and spread disinformation

He has been caught lying on here and on Rokslide so many times no one takes a word from him seriously

When confronted with his lies and disinformation he runs to hunt talk to hide behind his boy friend Randy the grifter

Buzzy no one listens to your lies. How is your big BHA gun control lobby doing with your close friend Busse?

Yet the fire's stuck with covtard Idaho_poofter, makin him look halfway intelligent, in comparison.

I'll keep this in mind when I'm looking for a piece of property on a stream/river in New Mexico and to also rub your face in same when property values don't decrease a single thin dime. Any kind of property in an arid state like New Mexico is only going to increase in value over time, stream access being legal or not.

LO's losing lease fees is not decreasing their land value, period, end of story. They were being compensated for something they didn't have the right to exclude others from. They should be thankful they got to take advantage for all those years of something they never have owned, just say thank you, and be on their way.

Tommybot/Fibka, the Russian sympathizer drones on like a broken record. Bots aren't capable of new material I guess.

Also, this thread is about corner crossing and how BHA crushed this thing for the good of all outdoor recreationists that want access to public lands. Try to keep up, I know it hard for a bot.

Something that isn't legally owned can't legally be sold.

True. But that "some interpretations" is an interpretation by a Federal judge after hearing both sides of the controversy present their arguments. Its not just some keyboard warrior on the 'Fire vomiting out his emotion-based opinion. The only way that judge's ruling can be changed is by a Federal Appellate Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.