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.
Buzz, you are a lying piece of schitt. Come on, tell us all exactly why you felt it necessary to edit out the last RELEVANT line of the law.
Apparently, your ignorant activist judge edited it out as well.
Quote
§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.
You stupid FUGG. Most of us here can read, and remember back more than two pages. Perhaps you are the exception.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
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!
You're flat wrong, there has been a lot of hunters corner crossing in Wyoming for a long time. Well before 2004, that's the reason AG Pat Crank wrote the opinion on title 23, trespass to hunt which stated corner crossing was not a violation of that Statute.
You're also wrong that there isn't quality hunting on checkerboard lands and that its difficult to corner cross. If its that tough, then why did 4 NR's from Missouri, kill 3 bull elk and a buck mule deer during their 2021 hunt? I can also show you a picture of a 355 bull that a good friend of mine's grandson killed by corner crossing in Natrona County just last fall.
You're also wrong that corner crossing won't open up significant amounts of public lands, unless you feel 8.3 million acres is not a large tract of land?
Its a benefit to every US citizen, all 340 million of them, again, not sure how you conclude that as "very, very, few".
Show me anything in your lifetime that's opened up 8.3 million acres of public lands, I can't and I've been at this a long time.
Also, like I've said, I have talked with numerous lawyers and law professors since this case started. Nearly all of them reached out to me, I didn't contact any of them first. They all assured me from the beginning that the UIA applied and that a decision just like what Skavdahl stated, was to be expected. They also have stated it WILL stand up in the 10th circuit and its highly unlikely to be heard by the SCOTUS.
Its legal now in Wyoming to cross corners and if appealed, and I really hope it is, in the 10th circuit. Most certainly similar cases will now be tried in most of the Western States and equally as certain will be argued similar to last Friday's Wyoming Federal Court case.
Public land access and public land owners won big, and WYBHA was the only group that was behind supporting this case.
You can watch things happen, you can make things happen, or wonder what the f$%k happened.
Right about now, you're wondering what happened...while myself and WYBHA were busy making things happen.
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????
This is true. Continental drift. Often a couple inches per year. Sometimes 6 to ten feet in a single event.
Okay, the img link is not going to work, the bleep part is c8.a l a m y.com without the spaces. It shows a road broken and dispalced by about ten feet in the Mt Borah earthquake forty years ago.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
Busy getting guns banned. Yes you are that big of a POS
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Strop10
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by TrueGrit
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by TrueGrit
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!
You're flat wrong, there has been a lot of hunters corner crossing in Wyoming for a long time. Well before 2004, that's the reason AG Pat Crank wrote the opinion on title 23, trespass to hunt which stated corner crossing was not a violation of that Statute.
You're also wrong that there isn't quality hunting on checkerboard lands and that its difficult to corner cross. If its that tough, then why did 4 NR's from Missouri, kill 3 bull elk and a buck mule deer during their 2021 hunt? I can also show you a picture of a 355 bull that a good friend of mine's grandson killed by corner crossing in Natrona County just last fall.
You're also wrong that corner crossing won't open up significant amounts of public lands, unless you feel 8.3 million acres is not a large tract of land?
Its a benefit to every US citizen, all 340 million of them, again, not sure how you conclude that as "very, very, few".
Show me anything in your lifetime that's opened up 8.3 million acres of public lands, I can't and I've been at this a long time.
Also, like I've said, I have talked with numerous lawyers and law professors since this case started. Nearly all of them reached out to me, I didn't contact any of them first. They all assured me from the beginning that the UIA applied and that a decision just like what Skavdahl stated, was to be expected. They also have stated it WILL stand up in the 10th circuit and its highly unlikely to be heard by the SCOTUS.
Its legal now in Wyoming to cross corners and if appealed, and I really hope it is, in the 10th circuit. Most certainly similar cases will now be tried in most of the Western States and equally as certain will be argued similar to last Friday's Wyoming Federal Court case.
Public land access and public land owners won big, and WYBHA was the only group that was behind supporting this case.
You can watch things happen, you can make things happen, or wonder what the f$%k happened.
Right about now, you're wondering what happened...while myself and WYBHA were busy making things happen.
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????
This is true. Continental drift. Often a couple inches per year. Sometimes 6 to ten feet in a single event. [img]https://c8.[bleep].com/comp/CX0DGW/earthquake-fault-line-cuts-across-a-main-road-the-lateral-displacement-CX0DGW.jpg[/img]
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?
I've lived through multiple large earthquakes and have seen doorways in the house I lived in "change coordinates" in seconds.
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)
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.
Buzz, you are a lying piece of schitt. Come on, tell us all exactly why you felt it necessary to edit out the last RELEVANT line of the law.
Apparently, your ignorant activist judge edited it out as well.
Quote
§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.
You stupid FUGG. Most of us here can read, and remember back more than two pages. Perhaps you are the exception.
Your opinion of the law is irrelevant, Judge Skavdahl got it right by referencing not only the UIA, but how the law was applied in Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. His ruling also referenced Mumford v. Rock Springs Grazing Association as well. Mackay was upheld by the 8th circuit court which stated, "As long as the present policy of the government concerning public lands continues, all persons as its licensees have an equal right of use to the public domain, which cannot be denied by interlocking lands held in private ownership".
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Internet analysis: 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact
Fools & fanatics are always so certain and wise people are always so questioning
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.
Buzz, you are a lying piece of schitt. Come on, tell us all exactly why you felt it necessary to edit out the last RELEVANT line of the law.
Apparently, your ignorant activist judge edited it out as well.
Quote
§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.
You stupid FUGG. Most of us here can read, and remember back more than two pages. Perhaps you are the exception.
Your opinion of the law is irrelevant, Judge Skavdahl got it right by referencing not only the UIA, but how the law was applied in Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. His ruling also referenced Mumford v. Rock Springs Grazing Association as well. Mackay was upheld by the 8th circuit court which stated, "As long as the present policy of the government concerning public lands continues, all persons as its licensees have an equal right of use to the public domain, which cannot be denied by interlocking lands held in private ownership".
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.
Buzz, you are a lying piece of schitt. Come on, tell us all exactly why you felt it necessary to edit out the last RELEVANT line of the law.
Apparently, your ignorant activist judge edited it out as well.
Quote
§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.
You stupid FUGG. Most of us here can read, and remember back more than two pages. Perhaps you are the exception.
Your opinion of the law is irrelevant, Judge Skavdahl got it right by referencing not only the UIA, but how the law was applied in Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. His ruling also referenced Mumford v. Rock Springs Grazing Association as well. Mackay was upheld by the 8th circuit court which stated, "As long as the present policy of the government concerning public lands continues, all persons as its licensees have an equal right of use to the public domain, which cannot be denied by interlocking lands held in private ownership".
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.
Buzz, you are a lying piece of schitt. Come on, tell us all exactly why you felt it necessary to edit out the last RELEVANT line of the law.
Apparently, your ignorant activist judge edited it out as well.
Quote
§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.
You stupid FUGG. Most of us here can read, and remember back more than two pages. Perhaps you are the exception.
Your opinion of the law is irrelevant, Judge Skavdahl got it right by referencing not only the UIA, but how the law was applied in Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. His ruling also referenced Mumford v. Rock Springs Grazing Association as well. Mackay was upheld by the 8th circuit court which stated, "As long as the present policy of the government concerning public lands continues, all persons as its licensees have an equal right of use to the public domain, which cannot be denied by interlocking lands held in private ownership".
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????
This is true. Continental drift. Often a couple inches per year. Sometimes 6 to ten feet in a single event. [img]https://c8.[bleep].com/comp/CX0DGW/earthquake-fault-line-cuts-across-a-main-road-the-lateral-displacement-CX0DGW.jpg[/img]
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?
I've lived through multiple large earthquakes and have seen doorways in the house I lived in "change coordinates" in seconds.
Sorry, my apologies. I thought it was a serious comment.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Right, I have no idea who Buzz is nor am I aware of BHA, but I have plenty of experience with wealthy obnoxious landowners pushing the little guy around. They can get extremely chapped over a trophy being killed by what they call a "broke dick" when it is an animal within a short distance of the property line. Especially if they have pictures of it being on their property at some time.
Being a game warden for 30 years puts you in contact with some real asses with money and a piece of property they think no one should come near.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Civil suit should have been dismissed. No harm was done to Eshelmans property. Criminal trespass is another matter entirely and should have gotten a conviction.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Right, I have no idea who Buzz is nor am I aware of BHA, but I have plenty of experience with wealthy obnoxious landowners pushing the little guy around. They can get extremely chapped over a trophy being killed by what they call a "broke dick" when it is an animal within a short distance of the property line. Especially if they have pictures of it being on their property at some time.
Being a game warden for 30 years puts you in contact with some real asses with money and a piece of property they think no one should come near.
My property boarders national forest I have no quarrels with other hunters hunting there as long as they stay off my property
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????
This is true. Continental drift. Often a couple inches per year. Sometimes 6 to ten feet in a single event. [img]https://c8.[bleep].com/comp/CX0DGW/earthquake-fault-line-cuts-across-a-main-road-the-lateral-displacement-CX0DGW.jpg[/img]
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm?
I've lived through multiple large earthquakes and have seen doorways in the house I lived in "change coordinates" in seconds.
Sorry, my apologies. I thought it was a serious comment.
NO problemo.
No matter how many times we ask, we just can't seem to get a sarcasm font!
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)
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Civil suit should have been dismissed. No harm was done to Eshelmans property. Criminal trespass is another matter entirely and should have gotten a conviction.
Nope, and the federal judge disagrees with you, so does the law.
Just admit you lost, is it that hard to say you're just flat wrong?
I see it as the exact opposite. Private landowners have been impeding the public access to public land for the better part of several decades (with the support of the WY justice system) and finally a case made it through the court system that says Federal Law says you can't do it.
I would encourage you to read the court's opinion that dismissed the civil suit.
Civil suit should have been dismissed. No harm was done to Eshelmans property. Criminal trespass is another matter entirely and should have gotten a conviction.
Nope, and the federal judge disagrees with you, so does the law.
Just admit you lost, is it that hard to say you're just flat wrong?
![[Linked Image from c8.[bleep].com]](https://c8.[bleep].com/comp/CX0DGW/earthquake-fault-line-cuts-across-a-main-road-the-lateral-displacement-CX0DGW.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/1Xg0sHT9/IMG-1122.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/lyarIYom.jpg)
