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

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.

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.

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.

Oh I see, you finally came clean with your bias. It’s going to impact your checks.

The courts got it right with both stream access and corner crossing. Speaking of stream access, about time somebody made the case in Wyoming...wonder who would pursue that next?

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

On the stream access issue, until last year, anyone who owned river/stream front property without public ground access had exclusive use/access to the water.

If the decision had been made the other way, do you feel someone wouldn't pay anymore for the Elk Mountain ranch, being that they'd have case law backing up their (basically) exclusive use of significant more acreage?

A quick, cursory google search brought up several unofficial news sites stating in various ways something to the effect of: "Eshelman bought the Elk Mountain Ranch in 2005 under the belief that he could control access to all the public land it enmeshed" and "When I bought the ranches, I was assured that corner crossing was illegal,” Eshelman said. “I went to BLM websites, and it said definitively, corner crossing is illegal..” That tells me Eshlman had at least some increased interest in the property due to the access situation, and I think it is a fair statement to say he was willing to pay more for it, due to him believing he could control access to the public land the ranch surrounded.

I haven't been following this story as closely as I probably should be, but with all this in mind, think SLM's argument has some merit. I also think that since various states have allowed access to state managed waterways as long as the person remains below the high water mark, that has had at least some affect on stream front property values. Just because your Blackfoot River property has gone up in value, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have gone up even more if the stream access court decisions had ruled differently.




I admit am a bit confused by this statement though:

Until last year, did New Mexico not allow public access along perennial streams as long as the person stays below the high water mark? I totally missed that whole situation, if so.

I admit am a bit confused by this statement though:

Until last year, did New Mexico not allow public access along perennial streams as long as the person stays below the high water mark? I totally missed that whole situation, if so.

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.

Didn’t plan on coming is this a invite🤣

It's interesting that our members can't seem to tip their hat to someone and their organization who put work into and succeeded in an important issue. For God's sake, that doesn't change the fact that he loves the sausage.

It's interesting that our members can't seem to tip their hat to someone and their organization who put work into and succeeded in an important issue. For God's sake, that doesn't change the fact that he loves the sausage.

I will have to agree that at least in the case under discussion the landowner believed the value of his deeded property was increased by restricted access to public lands. One might use as evidence the amount of money he was attempting to get as damages. I'm sure other landowners had the same feelings.

Believe me, the "surrounded by public land" will be used in advertising should we ever sell the place.

The case was decided on a summary judgment motion.

Which is the Judge's way a tellin the plaintiff he never shoulda even filed.

BHA had nothin ta do with such a simple legal decision.

BHA is a suckass organization, tryin ta ride the coattails of this case ta disguise its liberal positions.

Just like a tarquim post on the 'fire.