Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Just because I like throwing gas on fire, what are people's thoughts on:
Airspace----how high AGL should private ownership go? Should commercial airlines at 30,000 feet get ROWs to cross private?
How about NAD 83 vs WGS 84, VS other coordinate systems. I believe most federal and state agencies utilize NAD 83 but WGS 84 seems to be the default system used by GPSs. Usually there is only about 36" difference between the systems, but that is enough for disagreement whether someone is trespassing or not. In some areas there can be somewhat substantial differences between coordinates using the different systems. I have seen it vary 20 yards in some places that I am familiar with and I wouldn't doubt it is quite a bit more elsewhere, though I guess my mapping software my actually be at fault vs the datum.
Let's also not forget that coordinates change over time for objects which are fixed in the ground.
GO!
Dude?
You're harshin' my trip with all that technical stuff.
Especially that last part. If objects are fixed in the ground, how can the coordinates change over time????
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Captain Errant Ellipsis strikes again, this time correcting another member's grammar.
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of your lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Don't let the tub of lard anti gun freak buzzy distract you
this is what BHA is really up to. This is buzzy's close friend and BHA founder Ryan Busse. Yes Busse is a loser like buzzy
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by Mike_Dettorre
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of your lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Don't let the tub of lard anti gun freak buzzy distract you
this is what BHA is really up to. This is buzzy's close friend and BHA founder Ryan Busse. Yes Busse is a loser like buzzy
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by Mike_Dettorre
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Oh, look...the Russian sympathizer, Tommbot right on cue.
I have a entire safe full of "anti-gun" firearms...what a dolt. Come up with some new material, you're a broken record.
Don't let the tub of lard anti gun freak buzzy distract you
this is what BHA is really up to. This is buzzy's close friend and BHA founder Ryan Busse. Yes Busse is a loser like buzzy
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by Mike_Dettorre
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Captain Errant Ellipsis strikes again, this time correcting another member's grammar.
Not his grammar, his punctuation and knowing the difference between 2 entirely different words. My use of ellipsis is spot on, study up.
I don't tell you about spandex, don't tell me about my writing style.
Don't let the tub of lard anti gun freak buzzy distract you
this is what BHA is really up to. This is buzzy's close friend and BHA founder Ryan Busse. Yes Busse is a loser like buzzy
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by Mike_Dettorre
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Do you support banning AR 15s Buzz?
No, never have and stated so numerous times. Unlike idiots like earlybrd, the racist klan member, who can't even comprehend the UIA, I do understand the law. The Second is pretty straight forward and clear, wouldn't you agree?
All public property should have a right of way - easement to it. Just Eminent domain it like the road cutting between my hayfield and pasture. Through out the history of our country the people who have big money can afford to fight the little guy or the government and usually get what they want.
Not a problem. The Constitution requires payment of true value. What is it worth to you to get back there?
And do I as a taxpayer want to pay for that taking so you and three of your buddies can hunt on some little bit of remote real estate?
I'm all for paying the landowner a fair price for the easement using their tax appraisals.
Now you are attempting to twist the system for your benefit. How much is it worth to YOU, to gain easement over HIS property. That is the appropriate price.
That isn't how an easement in to public property works.
It is possible that since the land was seized for a public purpose, and has not been used for that purpose, it could revert back to the original owners or their heirs.
This is typically not how gov't properties become landlocked in the West.
As Gov't properties became available for homesteading, of course the choicest properties were selected and improved upon and became private lands. Choice lands includes anything with a water source, a flat area suitable for tillage, and often the availability of irrigation water.
Dry desert sage brush areas with no source of water went unclaimed, as did rocks and mountain sides. This naturally left many Gov't properties completely surrounded by homesteaded private properties. As years went by, many of these small farms, or ranches failed, or became available for sale by death of the owner, etc. The larger more successful operations bordering these lands purchased them and added to their holdings. The homesteading of properties was available well into modern times.
And yet still, the Gov't land lies there because it was never worth enough for anyone to file on it, even when it was free for the taking.
Quote
Passed on May 20, 1862, the Homestead Act accelerated the settlement of the western territory by granting adult heads of families 160 acres of surveyed public land for a minimal filing fee and five years of continuous residence on that land.
The Homestead Act, enacted during the Civil War in 1862, provided that any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. government could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land. Claimants were required to live on and “improve” their plot by cultivating the land. After five years on the land, the original filer was entitled to the property, free and clear, except for a small registration fee. Title could also be acquired after only a six-month residency and trivial improvements, provided the claimant paid the government $1.25 per acre. After the Civil War, Union soldiers could deduct the time they had served from the residency requirements.
The prime land across the country was homesteaded quickly. Successful Homestead claims dropped sharply after the 1930s. The Homestead Act remained in effect until 1976, with provisions for homesteading in Alaska until 1986.
Some keep making the point that this is a wonderful thing for hunters. Actually very, very, few hunters, IF the decision stands. The areas with corner crossings are typically not very large, nor are they that awful numerous. If the terrain were suitable to support huge numbers of game, it would have also supported grazing of livestock and, again typically, have been claimed as homestead. Obviously, there are exceptions.
This is a HUGE step backward for the protection of private property rights of all Americans, for the benefit of a very, very few.
Yes, there are huge tracts of landlocked gov't ground in the West. But most is not available via corner jumping. To get there requires actually walking or driving across private property.
Of course that would be the next step in the Communist agenda, the taking of strips of private property so as to build roads into Gov't ground.
But hey, Con Men get to jump on a soap box and claim great accomplishments, and pass the offering plate. While behind the scenes Con Men are stuffing their pockets at will.
Follow the FUGGGING MONEY!
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
buzzy. you stated that you never met BHA founder and anti gun activist Ryan Busse on here yet you worked closely with him for 20 years pushing gun bans across the US. Lying liar POS
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by Raferman
Originally Posted by ribka
Don't let the tub of lard anti gun freak buzzy distract you
this is what BHA is really up to. This is buzzy's close friend and BHA founder Ryan Busse. Yes Busse is a loser like buzzy
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by earlybrd
Originally Posted by Mike_Dettorre
Originally Posted by earlybrd Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed
And the relevance of that is what with respect to this case? that's an honest question not a snarky comment.
If you read the UIA of 1885 it has nothing to do with whether a property is survey or marked and in general trespassing has nothing to do with surveyed or marked. Whether a property is marked often has to do whether you can be convicted of trespassing or not. Various states have various laws that shift the burden of knowledge to the non-landowner or not and in some states it is different if the acitivity is hunting or not.
Sounds to me like the feds are fugking over land owners if that’s the case I see nothing to celebrate
What a shock, you don't understand something as simple as the law.
I understand your a fake ass fugkin maroon post up some dink deer pics you Pygmy fugk🤣🤣🤣🤣
Its "you're"...once or twice its a typo, consistently, you're just plain ignorant.
Oh, and for your continuing education on corner crossing, the UIA. I know you won't comprehend it, but others that actually make a difference will understand:
§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.
Judge Skavdahl ruled on a specific case Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. in regard to the UIA, made reference that Leo Sheep did not apply. Which was the correct ruling.
Again, I know someone of you're lack of a common education won't understand, so feel free to go pick a lock.
Do you support banning AR 15s Buzz?
No, never have and stated so numerous times. Unlike idiots like earlybrd, the racist klan member, who can't even comprehend the UIA, I do understand the law. The Second is pretty straight forward and clear, wouldn't you agree?
If you paid $10,000,000.00 for a boxcar load of stupid, opened the doors and all you got was Buzz, you would have got your money’s worth…
Ask buzzy and why BHA started a Montana sportsmen for Obama political grift funded by left wing child grewmers
Prove that BHA started "a Montana sportsmen for Obama" organization, you can't, because it didn't happen. Which makes you a liar, a fraud, and also guilty of libel. Come on Tom, show us you're not a liar.
If you paid $10,000,000.00 for a boxcar load of stupid, opened the doors and all you got was Buzz, you would have got your money’s worth…
Ask buzzy and why BHA started a Montana sportsmen for Obama political grift funded by left wing child grewmers
Prove that BHA started "a Montana sportsmen for Obama" organization, you can't, because it didn't happen. Which makes you a liar, a fraud, and also guilty of libel. Come on Tom, show us you're not a liar.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/63b8KsVp/DSCN4329.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/GtbVs3g9/IMG-1120.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/EFVqY8e.jpg)
