https://wyofile.com/judge-rules-in-favor-of-corner-crossing-hunters/


https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/hunters-win-corner-crossing-case-wyoming/?amp

That is AWESOME and the right decision!

Thank God there’s a glimmer of sanity out there!

That’s great news for the people that own the public land. And not so good news for those who want to have exclusive use of that land owned by the public.
I doubt that this is the last of the legal proceedings on this.

Good deal.

Here’s hoping Eshelman either goes broke, has a stroke over his greed or decides to move to a more sensible place for a dumbass like him…New York sounds right for the name.

That is good news.

Waiting for the Democrat ballwasher to show up touting it as a feather in her cap however.

Thanks for the update.

I knew there was good reason to check in here tonight.

Ditto on the thanks for an update!

This guy sounds like a real tool. Thinking he could keep 10's of 1000's of public acreage for himself... I guess he's been successful for the years this has dragged through the courts.

You're a blister...show up after the work is done.

WYBHA made this happen, just like we always do. We do good work, period end of story.

Thanks to all that donated to the GoFundMe...when the final nail is driven into this, all the public land owners will have access to 8.3 million acres of OUR land.

He owns the ranch property, but lives in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Great news! I guess 22K acres wasn’t enough for the spoiled brat!

GFY

I was kinda thinking the same thing... WTF?

A solid win for hunters and some folks gotta get all VJJish.

Designed especially for sliding an elk across a corner.

It failed in Colorado

Good on you for the work you put into that.

There are quite a few people who don't donate through GoFundMe, because they are a liberal organization that allowed contributions to bail out rioters who broke the law, but shut down the Kyle Rittenhouse fund when he engaged in legal self-defense.

This whole mess goes back to congress in the 1800's. When they gave the railroads all those checkboard sections of land, they failed to specify corner crossings. That would have eliminated years of headaches and lawsuits.

Meanwhile, you campaign to cut off access to everyone but yourself.

It's hilarious to watch you as age catches up with you.

Buzzy is a fugking loser

Amen. PTL

Hahaha. Tff. Winner, winner.....

I just pitced them over a piece at a time.

Like a fly to a turd, Buzz will always be there to strut and brag. What a maroon…

What would happen if the two private landowners at the corners each erected a short stretch of border wall style fence and connected them?

I've been thinking that that's exactly what's going to happen.

It seems to me that eminent domain of a 5 foot wide swath (2.5 feet on each side) would be the best long term solution.

That would allow the passage of most ATV's at 50" (including my 50" RZR), but prohibit 95% of UTV's at 60" or more.

ATVs and small UTVs could get through, but it would preclude it from becoming a high traffic off road vehicle pass through.

They'd be violating the UiA....read the summary judgement.

I guess I’ve always felt a landowner has the right to do what he wants with his own land. Every last inch of it. If he wants to build a high fence within 1mm of his corner, that’s his deal. If the cross corner guy does the same thing, then it’s the same thing.

I wish no public land were landlocked, but sometimes things aren’t like I wished.

Have to get around roadless designations first. My guess, traffic will be limited to foot and horse.

If you can ever gain passage of ROW laws.

It seems this would be the way of the American Constitution.

But as the nation slides toward Communism, even the Conservative adopt Socialist ideals.

This is the most sensible solution. The 5th amendment clearly assumes the right of the government to take private property for public use as long as just compensation is paid. The 5 foot path isn't enough considering that in the future trucks and firefighting equipment such as bulldozers might need to get through. No need to go through the expropriation process more than once. 50 or 60 feet would be more like it.

I believe that a public easement of 4 or 5 feet @ every corner be fair to the public. That land belongs to you and I and we should have free and fair access to it.

That's what the next lawsuit should be.

Man, I am kinda with you on this, but can you imagine the mess we'd have if there were no easements or eminent domain?

Can you imagine if the government hadn't been stupid.

Typically attracts the laziest and stupidest segment of the population ,but not always obviously. I’m not referring to LEO/ military at all .

So, what is the value in $ to the public of said ROW. Eminent domain does require fair compensation.

What % of the public will make use of ROW once established? Why should I and millions of other Americans pay for a ROW to be used by such few people?

Don't like land locked public property? Buy the private land blocking your access! Or buy that ROW. Offer the land owner enough to make it worth his while.

But no! Let .gov just take it and give it to you. That is much easier than earning it.

Your still a fugking loser

If they do give passage of ROW then wouldn’t federal Americans With Disability Laws also be enforced?
There would have to be equal access for all, not just those physically able to climb ladders, right?

If we’re gonna use eminent domain for recreational access, why not just seize all the good hunting and fishing places. Public good, and all.

Corner hopping is not an issue with me, but I do own property on a trout stream. Access here is pretty limited. Seizing a 10ft swath across my place would give lots of fishermen access. I wouldn’t care much for that.

If buzzy can’t grift he ain’t interested

That’s why BHA does nothing for hunting seasons being shut down. But BHA and buzzy will support every gun ban and confiscation.

Fugk buzzy and his grift he’s a loser

Probably not. They have not installed wheel chair ramps to the top of the best elk hunting mountains.......YET.

#winning, nothing new, I'm used to it.

Hopefully gets appealed by iron bar holdings so we can win again in the 10th circuit. That will set precedent in a big part of the West.

Take out your notepads and pencils, this is how it's done.

I opened up my note pad the first page said buzzy is a loser

Eminent Domain is used fairly often for recreational access such as boat ramps and dams when it was legal to build a dam. In my state all kinds of land and even graveyards were taken (and paid for) when dammed up water covered them. And we don't as a rule dam up water for power generation, irrigation, or city water supply although sometimes water systems do tap in after the fact. It is usually that a lake is built for recreation.

As to your trout stream you probably aren't in danger unless you are blocking the only nearby access to a large public property.

How do they get the dead game back over the ladder? Is there a long way around by road?

I’ve never heard of ED being used here (MI) for recreational access. It may have happened, but it must be rare. If we’re to go there, why limit it to corner crossing issues? Just seize all the good land and call it a public good. Shucks, maybe seize businesses while we’re at it. We all know how that ends.

Yep. imminent domaine, one square yard, foot traffic only, at corner crossings would fix it, but lets face it, many, perhaps all, western states' legislatures are in the pocket of the big ranchers.

Ain't gonna happen.

Not saying I agree with it. I’m saying once this ball gets rolling it’s not going to be guided by level headed, practical, logical, and reasonable decisions. There are already too many laws out there and the whole concept of unintended consequences. Who knows where this ends.

Just look to Stalin's Russia to know exactly where it ends.

Federal seizures of all lands and businesses.

There is a hell of big difference between eminent domain to build a new freeway for millions to use each year, or seizing a piece of private property so six hunters can get across to what they think might be a honey hole.

I do not see myself corner crossing, but I am glad to see the ruling.

Maybe a group that builds “sky bridges” from closest public access to the public land so that the people that actually pay for it can access it. 😂. The Eshelman’s of the world either agree to allow access for all in perpetuity or they’ll be responsible that nothing they do or own or employ will damage the public access.

Throw the Guides/Outfitters in there too. G/O’s in WY would turn WY into Alberta if they could where NOBODY from out of state could hunt a thing without them.

I chose 1 square yard to eliminate 4 wheelers and UTV. It would not eliminate 2 wheel traffic, like motorcycles, so that's why I specified foot traffic only. Had not considered the handicap thing. Wheelchairs are less than 36 inches wide, usually

Handicap access for those that can walk 2 steps or fit a wheelchair through a doorway? I don't see a problem.

There is no discussion about motorized access or any talk of eminent domain or any other taking.

This case is/was 100% about stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land.

Read the summary judgement...

One step at a time. I'm sure you'll eventually get it pared down to only people who are nicknamed "Buzz" and last name starts with "H".

Not hardly, I'm all about 340 million Americans having access to our public lands, always have been.

Why I've fought for hunters since the 80's. Fought for stream access in Montana, won. Fought for the right to hunt state lands in Montana, won.

Fought for corner crossing being legal in Wyoming, won. When this is appealed will win again and it will be legal access in the entire 10th circuit.

I heard from a reliable source there is going to be some pertinent info released by the DOI here soon as well...stay tuned.

I'll be crossing some great corners this fall in Wyoming, like I always have.

This entire discussion reminds me of troubles we had in the 70s with numerous trespassing pheasant hunters. Before Id put some teeth into trespass law and penalties.

Many were totally indignant that we could own all that ground and lock them out of it. Many stated so in so many words.

I once asked a trespassing pheasant hunter for his address: He told the street in Boise, (all the asshwholes were from Ada County)

I asked if they had a large lawn and a pool at the house.

"Why, what does that matter?"

"I am looking for a place to hold a family reunion and picnic. A pool would be nice for the kiddies"

He stuttered and stammered and went on for a bit about "But, that's different."

"Really, how so?"

If you want to trample over people's land, pay for it.



Hell, if you want onto that land locked .gov property so badly, hire a helicopter to fly you in.

BS. You said yourself you are about closing down roads on Fed lands.

Some roads, absolutely...in particular seasonal closures to protect fawns/calves, stop illegal off road use, reduce maintenance costs, etc.

Why hire a helicopter when it's legal in Wyoming to step from one piece of public land onto another piece of public land? That's just dumb.

If the air over ones property is owned by them how high does that go? Does SW Airlines have to pay a trespass fee to use the air above it?

Unfortunately the "the mothership" in Bozeman was extremely quiet. Very telling.

The greater preservationist plan is to close all roads. No thanks bha. Inch by inch...

What matters is what gets accomplished and just for the record the HQ is in Missoula.

There was, and is, a lot going on behind the scenes.

Why behind the scenes? This could've been one of the biggest cases of land access in a long time, yet nothing but crickets from the headquarters. I'm sure they were busy counting their cash while relying on donations from avg Joe's....it's sad that volunteers have to carry the organization.

Volunteers, donations, what does bha do with all its cash? Pay lobbyists? How much does the purple haired lady get paid to lobby for bha in WY?

I love public land, but I just can't support an entity that is run by rabid leftists, real tight with info concerning where money comes from and where it goes.

I know it IS the biggest land access case in my lifetime. There was no reason for anyone to get in the way of the chapter efforts on this. We had help from a few local sportsmen, vetted the misdouri4, and raised money for their defense. The 120k raised for court cases was accounted for down to the penny, 4 independent co-signers for expenditures and a private CPA taking care of the expense reports.

Sometimes, less is more...and considering we're about to gain access to 8.3 million acres with $120k in legal fees, I don't know how it gets any better?

How much cash did BHA headquarters chip in to help?

Are you sayin ya bribed the judge?

For the record I'm not discounting anything wybha did to make this happen. What I am doing is pointing out the organization at the top does absolutely nothing besides shuffle around money to leftist pac's.

Yes volunteers at the local level do stuff and individuals donated to the cause, the .org not so much.........

I read what I understood of the judge’s comments. It seemed that the verdict was specific to the facts of this case. I didn’t see where he prohibited tall fencing of corners. No attorney here, so I could have missed that. I do understand that an advocate such as yourself would want to generalize it.

Ultimately, if a landowner is not free to put fence as high as he chooses to the very last inch of his property, then there is a taking. Such fencing would leave no practical way to cross his corners. Other than the covetousness of his neighbors, I see no reason he should not have the right to do so.

Read the summary judgement, that judge is nobody to mess with and there is zero chance he can be bribed. The opposition tried...

We raised 120k, vetted the Missouri4, interviewed and hired the best attorneys, talked to countless outside lawyers, law professors, etc etc.

Everything by the book.

Read the UIA for starters, specifically the cases the judge cites. The precise reason the UIA was made law is to prohibit a landowner from denying or impeding access to public lands. Secondly, Wyoming Statute states clearly that the airspace on the corners is shared with the "several owners" meaning you can't build a fence to prohibit access.

Then you didn't do shat.

Right... 🤡

tater head and now scuzz.

What's in the water in WY that makes losers think they can claim credit for other people's accomplishments?

I think it's a good thing no matter how it got done or who got it done.

1) No one set foot on private property.

2) The 2 tracts that had feet on them were not privately owned.

3) Eshelman doesn't want flights in to the public owned land either.

https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_4e27c742-f01a-582f-9412-58562395ebad.html

Buzzy I got a question for ya in the nugent thread

The politicians that created the checker board weren't lazy or stupid, just corrupt.

Like this guy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Holtzclaw

The discussion here is of taking private lands (at public expense) to give a very few access through those private lands.

What in the Holy Hell is wrong with flying into the public lands? Except that the hunter is on the hook for the cost of the flight time, rather than foisting the cost onto the taxpayer?

What Eshelman wants is of no consequence!

So your big breakthrough is that politicians are corrupt?

[img][/img]

Why wear ear protection while using a suppressor? LMAO

Gawd dam that guy is fat

The subject of the thread is referring to the legal proceedings about corner crossing from one existing tract of public land to another existing tract of public land. No trespassing involved at all so it isn't clear why you would bring up what you described as trespassing pheasant hunters.

Eshelman and a large number of people supporting him having control of property he does not own seem to think what he wants does matter.

I was just looking at public land in WY for an upcoming trip. I see a lot of the ‘checkerboard’ pattern mentioned above.

With OnX Hunt & a gps position one knows exactly where they are. I get the no vehicle thing & all that, without permission.

Yes I can see ranches & owners locking up public land behind them. I think the ruling is great.

Because the decibel level suppressed is still high enough that damage to hearing is occurring and the damage is cumulative.

https://www.ensafe.com/occupational-noise-exposure-key-osha-provisions/

I am happy that it passed . It makes no sense to prohibit millions of acres of public land for private land owners. Also, I am surprised it is not legal to step over the corner. I am also surprised that if a land owner tried to stop a guy from corner crossing, the land owner likely would have to prove exactly where his corner is... In Wis. government corners are marked , even way back in the woods. However, some are so old they are believed to not be very accurate. I know of one that had a copper cap that is dated Dec. 6, 1941. After that day the copper caps stopped , likely from what happened the next day. Anyway, it would cost a fortune to prove exactly where the corners are, or does the government have steel corner pipes to show the exact corner? Also , I am sure some jack a$$ land owner will do all they can do to scare hunters away.. You know, flat tires, swearing, and likely follow them on to the public land in a form of hunter harassment. It's coming , a gun fight likely too. These ranchers see it as their land. I'm sure most are ok, but there will be a few.

It’s called a survey and doesn’t cost a fortune to get corners marked.

You didn't mention corruption as the cause for the checkerboard when the politicians who did it knew exactly what they were doing.

You also tried claiming all mil/le were somehow different and Officer Daniel The Rapist Holtzclaw shows that to not have a basis in fact.

The subject corner has been marked since 1878.

https://amerisurv.com/2023/02/09/corner-crossing/

I know it's called a survey , and it will cost plenty to get dozens marked . By the way, surveys are not exactly cheap.

So nothing exists between not exactly cheap and a fortune? Got it.

Marked since 1878.

https://amerisurv.com/2023/02/09/corner-crossing/

Ok, Karen

That one doesn't hold up either.

"Karen is a pejorative term used as slang for a white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal."

5 pages of this and I am a little lost. I am reading this like hunters were trespassing on private land (corner of the property) to get to public land that is otherwise inaccessible from that area. Is that correct?

You don’t even own a suppressor, Karen.

The hunters never set foot on private property. The private property owner wanted sole control of public land he does not own.


This explains it better.

https://amerisurv.com/2023/02/09/corner-crossing/

Slippery slope but I understand now, thank you.

So I can hop the corner this Summer?

I don't own a jet either, yet I understand the principles of how they fly.

You ignore facts to suit your own narrative. In this exchange alone you are ignoring the info about survey markers already being in place and how decibel levels affect hearing.

Sure , Karen. Sure. Keep speaking based on your Google experience ya fugking idiot.

Not sure about slippery slope. No foot was set on private property and the owner even harassed people who flew aircraft in to the publicly owned land.

I am aware of a couple of incidents in the 1980's where people were in the process of buying a narrow strip of land from a public agency surrounding a large area of publicly owned land and another where property owners were selling a large tract of land to a public agency less a owned tract completely surrounding what was to be publicly owned and both attempts got torpedoed.

Been aware of how planes fly, suppressors operate, hearing damage from sound exposure, and property corners long before Google existed.

Bottom line is the four hunters did everything in their power to ensure they did not trespass. That shows lack of intent. They did not intend to trespass as they used GPS, found the corner survey marker, and crossed. Even when the private land owner interfered with the public air space by running a chain from two t-posts at their corners, they used a ladder to ensure they didn't step foot on private.

Common sense has prevailed.

No, you haven’t. Shut the fugk up.

Slippery slope in terms of future non-hunting or public land related legal opinions based on this particular case. A good lawyer could even twist it into an eminent domain issue.

There should be an easement in to it.

§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.)

Is that federal law?

My point in my comment about a slippery slope is, one could use that particular ruling in another state such as where I reside to levy the use of eminent domain for things such as power lines and the like. It would also be entirely possible to backdoor force proffers for certain private projects that trigger laws such as stormwater management and phosphorus/nitrogen reduction.

Then they would be wrong too.

I bring up the pheasant hunters because just like the corner jumpers they think they have a right to use of what others have spent their blood, sweat, and tears to buy and build.

Wah, wah, fugging wah, he has it and I want to run across it! And I want someone else to pay for it! Fugging Socialists!

You can not cross a piece of property without trespassing upon that property, unless you are in FAA controlled airspace. I do not know about other states. I can only use Idaho as an example. In Idaho trespassing includes the words "to cause a force to cross said property". Specifically, you can not shoot across another property. Jumping over the property would seem to be in the same vein.

Let's put it this way. Can I go buy a drone and fly it around in your back yard six feet off the ground. Maybe I am filming your kids playing in the pool, maybe I am not. Maybe I am taking pictures through your windows, maybe I am not. Point being, according to many here, I am not trespassing as long as the drone does not touch the ground.

Most of us here would blow the drone right out of the sky and think we were quite justified.

Had I been the judge in this case, I would have awarded Eshelman $1 in damages and told the hunters next time they would by subject to all trespass penalties.

As I have said many times, If you want to cross another's property, figure out just what it is worth in $ to do so, and see if the property owner will agree. If not, hire that helicopter.

Read that last sentence again carefully.

Once you have clear title to land, you have the right to prevent trespass.

You know what guys. This has all been hashed out in the 19th century. Most of these laws were established over 100 years ago. And the law properly adjudicated since.

So now a bunch of Socialists want to rewrite the laws and take what others have bought and paid for.

FINE! Pay them what it is worth!

Talking right out of your ass...

Do yourself a favor and read the summary judgement. I'd also brace yourself because corner crossing is now legal to access public lands in Wyoming. Will be legal elsewhere, including Idaho soon enough.

YES? And how many millions will you personally pocket of the money donated to make this Socialist dream come true?

But you are still too fugging cheap to pay for a helicopter.


Lots of laws get changed to fit the Communist agenda. Does not make it right. But hell that pesky Constitution is a "Living Document" and all that schitt.

Fugk summary judgment and fugk you

Hey Buzz, where do you live? Give us an address. You will be talking out the other side of your mouth if a drone shows up in your back yard.

Yes that is federal law.

Utility companies are able to use eminent domain in Wyoming and most other states.


Not seeing how securing access for the public to publicly owned land is benefitting a private party. If anything, this is the opposite of that.

Broke back mountain Wyoming he’s the fugking mayor🤣

I read the whole thing. What I haven't read is anything indicating Eshelman has "gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith" which seems to indicate homesteading the publicly owned tract in question. Why should anyone pay him for something he doesn't own?

If I read correctly, the UIA is a very old law that has been previously interpreted to NOT allow corner crossing. Since this was a Federal court, I don’t think it would have used the WY state law in it’s ruling. I’ve also read that the WY law does not give corner jumpers a clear green light.

This judge, an Obama appointee at the District Court level, will not likely be the final word on this issue. As you obviously know that, I suspect that your public remarks have been scripted by your lawyers, so they might be taken with a grain of salt. I have no real dog in this fight other than a general respect for private property rights. As previously stated, I’m no attorney, so apologies if I’ve misstated any of the above.

According to the judge in the case, no one is taking private lands.................assuming we're sticking with the topic of the original post.

Others have brought eminent domain, passage corridors and such into the discussion.

This is the Campfire ya' know...................hard to keep all these folks concentrating on the topic at hand.

Except someone already hired the aircraft and Eshelman proved his concern isn't trespass on land he owns, but is instead being able to control land he doesn't own.

The UIA is constitutional. How do you find it appropriate to keep 340 million public land owners from accessing their public lands by stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land?

The Federal Judge in this case applied the law as intended.

It's that simple...you can cry, gripe, pout all you want, but he ruled correctly.

Nobody gives a fugk buzzy

Exactly right, he harassed any hunters, both those that accessed the public by aircraft or corner crossing. Its documented in the sworn deposition...which will likely result in him and Grende being cited.

That line does not refer to the public land. It refers to the private land you must cross to get to the public land.

Nobody can stop you from occupying public land. But they do not have to let you cross private deeded land to get there.

Nobody gives a fugk buzzy[/qwizard
Well, I mean other than 340 million US citizens...you're " right" as always.

Did the imperial wizard let you light the crosses last night?

Did you have a bad dream I did 🤣🤣🤣

That line does not refer to the public land. It refers to the private land you must cross to get to the public land.

Nobody can stop you from occupying public land. But they do not have to let you cross private deeded land to get there.[/quote]

Nobody sets foot on private land corner crossing, period end of story.

That is an entirely different matter, and a damned good way for someone to die.

Try to force most people off of anywhere they have a perfectly good reason to be, is going to necessitate use of force. Which will lead to justified self defense.

Then they did not cross the property????????????? What a dumb ass!

340 million people????? What a crock of schitt!!!!!

More like you and 12 of your buddies. This is not Michigan with 400 deer to the acre.

We have yet to see what a real judge does with this on appeal.

Meanwhile, you just keep on keeping on. May you fill your pockets to overflowing.

Grift is what grifters do.

Hope they like prison...

Nobody sets foot on private land corner crossing, period end of story.[/quote]

That’s a bit ingenious. If it were that simple, the issue would have been resolved decades ago. And you know it’s far from the end of the story. A bit more propaganda, I think.

It hasn't been appealed but I sure hope it is. We're talking 8.3 million acres of public land open to recreation. I've talked with a few dozen attorneys, 14 law professors and they all were in agreement the Missouri4 has a strong case.

A carbon county jury agreed, so did a federal judge last Friday.

Throw your sucker in the dirt all you want...really don't care.

That’s a bit ingenious. If it were that simple, the issue would have been resolved decades ago. And you know it’s far from the end of the story. A bit more propaganda, I think.[/quote]

Wrong, have you been living under a rock the past 40-50 years?

Unbelievable.

Buzz... you have 10% minus... of the charisma of brokedick Burn.

Do you mind if I call you "Brokedick Buzz"?

Purely a rhetorical question mind you?

Thanks in advance...

Well, while the cuunts that will never hunt out west bitch, piss, moan and pick at buzz, I thank buzz, the bha, everyone that donated to the cause, and the Missouri 4.

The miserable fuucks that do nothing but bitch and whine, keep it up, “back east” is a great place for you cuunts.👊🏻😘

Hard Copy

Them Biden Boyz as thick as thieves.
Lol

Was MOtown boys that hadda come west ta show y'all what balls is.

In my 30 years as a state and federal game warden I met many an SOB like Eshelman. Eshelman's conduct toward the pilot Mr. Scott and his wife proves (as if we didn't know) beyond any doubt what his greedy ass motives were.

God bless the federal judge and this proves the value of a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Everyone wants someone else to do their fighting for them.

No thanks required, just make sure to cross a few corners to hunt my/your public land next time you're hunting Wyoming.

You're also right, lots of miserable folks on the campfire. Sad, but their own fault.

That line does not refer to the public land. It refers to the private land you must cross to get to the public land.

Nobody can stop you from occupying public land. But they do not have to let you cross private deeded land to get there.[/quote]


See the part about "said land"? "Said land" is referring to public land in the law. The exception is referring to homesteading which did not occur.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter25&edition=prelim#:~:text=No%20person%2C%20by%20force%2C%20threats,tract%20of%20public%20land%20subject

Not true in this case, but carry on with the nonsense. The rich landowner pressed the issue because they were NRs, he didn't try that chit with Residents.

Figured he could prove his point because they wouldn't have the resources, desire, or time to fight.

What Fred didn't figure was a handful of motivated residents willing to put their money, talent, and time into providing the resources it takes to do so.

The Missour4 will tell you outright, without WyBHA they would have not fought this. The thanks goes to a combined effort and 2100 sportsmen/women and other outdoor recreationists that contributed to opening up public access to public lands.

The good guys won, and won big...I really hope Fred files that appeal.

Either way, the genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. Public land owners want access to THEIR public land, and we're getting that access.

You fugging idiot. You just advocated for sending legitimate hunters to prison in the case of justified self defense.

Bullshit.

It isn't a separate matter at all because it is the same person that is wanting to control land he does not own.

Also the same person that tried to claim a waypoint on a GPS system was evidence of trespass. Be like spilling coffee on a map that includes his property and having him try to claim vandalism.

God damn right I’m right. It’s easy to see folks as miserable as most here on the fire, don’t do a fuucking thing but bitch, talk shiit about other members. I’m sure you’ll know where I’ll be huntin big bulls, corners will be crossed and good bulls will be killed. Meanwhile the “back east faags” will be suckin Dick to gain access, planting food plots, breeding deer, and fillin feeders!!😂😂

Stay back there bitches, nothing west of the Mississippi!😘

Idiot, we have law enforcement for a reason. Landowners that harass hunters on public land will be dealt with by our law enforcement.

Lay off binge watching Yellowstone, you're sounding like a drama queen.

It wasn't totally clear what you meant. I believe he thought you were advocating for Eshelman to use deadly force.

Been hunting "Out West" my entire life. I never had to trespass to keep the freezer filled. There's a lot of public ground available without infringing on other's rights.

I'll leave the infringing to the growing crop of Communists.

Post your phone number, well get on a call with the Missouri4 and see who's bullshitting and who isn't. Hell, we can get Semerad, their lead attorney on the call too...

Your bluff has been called, junior.

Corner crossing isn't trespassing in Wyoming and isn't infringing on anyone.

As have I, in a whole buncha states and provinces, you don’t wanna access YOUR land, well than don’t… it’s really that simple.

Oh yeah, you do you. Double down!

When someone comes into camp and tries to push you off public land, the cops are probably about two minutes away. Especially when you are about ten miles from the nearest cell signal. LMFAO

Wrong, have you been living under a rock the past 40-50 years?

Unbelievable.[/quote]
A fugkin maroon you are buzz hang your crooked nose on a apple tree branch and pick with both hands everybody is tired of your schit

🍎🍎🍎🤣🤣🤣🤣🖕🖕🖕

I am sure your pockets will be a lot fatter before it is finally settled. With best of luck, for you, it might go to SCOTUS. You could make millions.

Camera on the cell phone doesn't need cell coverage to record an unruly landowner. I don't live in an episode of Yellowstone, neither do most landowners. Enough with the stupid drama talk.

It’s actually almost unbelievable, this is one of those threads that we should all be thankful for, not basing it off of emotions. It’s a fuucking win for any sportsman that hunts, fishes, bikes, hikes anything in Wyoming, and will hopefully carry over to other states that have copious amounts of landlocked public land. Obviously most here don’t care, they’d rather bitch on the www..

It's a very slim and narrow window it goes to SCOTUS, really, really good chance the 10th circuit upholds federal judge Skavdahls ruling he issued last Friday.

Let us hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS. Then Eshelman can go lick his well deserved wounds.

Haha, ask the IX owner bout some Washington boys years ago when he tried to get “tough”. Him and his faag king ranch Ford.😂😂 oh it’s fine for his crew to cross onto my Ol buddy’s place with clients, until it wasn’t. Haha

Bitch Brian Russell, there’s a bone for ya to knaw on😘

If they currently hunt it's rarely or in the past. Many obviously live in the past, Mayberry always was their fantasy.

How can I put this in single syllable words so you can understand.

If one walks into a hunter's, (oh strike that. two syllables) man's camp and tries to push him out. Most men will not leave with out the laying on of hands. Or show of lethal force. Either is justification for lethal self defense.

Oh Hell, all kinds of syllables in that last sentence.

With all do respect, it sounds like your a large landowner or god buddy’s that are?

When was the last time you used lethal force while being pushed out of your camp on public land?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Your problem here is like many posting on this thread, nothing a loser hates more than a winner.

The last time me and you had a pics or it never happened you gave up the ghost and you won’t the winner

Yep, just like forgiveness of all College loans. Just like Obama Care. Just like Covid handouts.

It sure feels good if you are one of the micro minorities to actually profit off of this Socialist bullschitt. Not so great if you are the one being victimized.

Maybe we should go through the cities and suburbs and declare any patch of yard over 500 sq feet superfluous and confiscate the ground for city parks.

Maybe the school kids could find a short cut through your yard to get to school and back home. What right do you have to stop them?

Give the Commies another fifty years, and it will not matter as they fully intend to nationalize every piece of private ground. And the people will have no weapons to hunt with anyway.

Not even close to the same. Again, you must or know someone that owns large tracts of land in Idaho?

The real problem is many have no use for a con-man.

And you are the fugging idiot that said Eshelman was trying to push hunters off of public land.

I am saying, that ain't likely to happen as most hunters just happen to be carrying lethal weapons, and would be fully justified in their use.

While we’re whinning and crying, now read closely and comprehend. I own property on the north fork of the newaukum river in Lewis County Washington. Now follow along. The river splits my property almost in half. I’ve owned this property for almost 20 years. My property ends at the high water mark. I have folk’s fish, kyak, look for rocks etc year round In my yard and they’re not 1 fuucking thing I can do about it. Do I care?? Fuuck no I don’t care, had to pick up some worm containers before, as long as folks are enjoying the outdoors and not [bleep] in my yard, have fun👊🏻

Not even close. But I do value the American way of life, our Constitution, and the protections from takings within.

One does not have to personally gain from a viewpoint to recognize right from wrong.


Now, how many arguing for this bullschitt "corner crossing" do not personally intend to gain from it?

👍👍👍👍

That is because anything below the high water mark in any stream is public access and has been since time immemorial.

Far different matter than trying to get old laws overturned and reinterpreted.

There are examples of Eshelman trying to push people off public land.

And my original statement, That would be a good way to die!

It's been law since 1885 that no person can prevent another from entering public land.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter25&edition=prelim#:~:text=No%20person%2C%20by%20force%2C%20threats,tract%20of%20public%20land%20subject

Nothing quite like talking round and round in circles.

Nope not really. You continue to avoid my question of, do you or one of your buddies own land that blocks “public land”. Pretty simple question

Oh, and check out the “Willapa river” since you think “all rivers” allow access

And again, you don't have to let them cross your land to do so.

circle, circle, circle

I said NO! I can see how an unselfish interest might be hard for many to understand.

And no one set foot on private land.

Awhile ago you were trying to claim the law referenced was referring to private land which it does not.

Is this "river" somehow excluded from the navigable waters act? I will have to take your word for it without further research.

I dunno, I thought “all” rivers were included. Can’t wait to piss off outfitters in Wyoming next year!!👊🏻😘

Most that are crying will stay home, yet again next year. It’s really not worth it!!

Read it again.
let's simplify it to its core.

Simply put, you may not infringe upon privately held lands to reach public land behind.


First it will be "corner crossings" which has been settled law for over 100 years. Next the communists will want to seize tracts of private land to build roads into public lands where no "corner crossing" exists.

I seem to remember some such lawsuits have already happened.

Simply put now, quit leaching off the government tit, purchase the land or shut the fuuck up.😘

I can’t find one thing to disagree with!

Meanwhile if the price of the lease on 300 acres or 1000 acres or 3000 acres of arid, junkyard, wasteland goes up there is a huge sympathetic response. Deny the rightful owners access to their property by harassment, intimidation and other childish and illegal means and be hailed as a hero. I don’t get the illogic involved or the mental masturbation needed to reach such a ridiculous conclusion….thankfully their “opinion” is WRONG and they are now easily ignored.

More threads on high fenced leases keeping “game” in and more threads on feeders oughta get us Western boys falling in line…..😂😂

ALL PUBLIC LAND SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE! The Eshelman’s and other worthless detritus like them hopefully find where skid row is and settle in for their future since they can no longer make millions stealing from the public through intimidation and illegal restrictions.

Same sentiment: pay for access, or shut the fugg up.

We can already hear the screams if .gov were to start selling any of these tracts for their true value as ag/grazing/forest ground.

That is certainly not politically expedient. But the ranchers would jump on the offer in a heartbeat.

So maybe until you hunt Wyoming, or , hopefully this comes to Idaho, which I’m sure it will, stfu. Everyone bitches about private ground, outfitters etc, this just cut a buncha acciilles heals..

Hell ya, we’re seeing the big timber companies fuuckin us now as you know

We ALREADY FU.CKING PAY FOR ACCESS! 🤬

Are you advocating for higher taxes across the board? Higher license fees?

How in thefuck does crossing from one piece of public property to another piece of public property affect anyone?

You get so entrenched in your hair-brained ideas that logic and reason falls on your deaf ears.

Luckily you ARE WRONG and the courts and sportsman won! It’s because of greedy, half assed mental midgets that deny lawful access to legal owners that your little pee-pees are going to be smacked and smacked again! I’ll relish every ounce of pain from greedy bastards!

I can’t believe any conservative hunter or fisher would take issue with something this SIMPLE….this country has gone fuggin crazy with stupidity.

No law is truly "settled" as is evidenced by the Bruen case. The SCOTUS decision just "unsettled" over a century of NY law.

Shall we go back to the old way or stick with the Bruen decision.

A federal judge has just ruled that corner crossing does not constitute trespass upon private land. And it would seem, he has decided that what the ranch owner was doing violated a federal rule about blocking access to public lands.

This case is NOT about crossing private land to get to an enclosed parcel of public land..........as I'm sure your truly understand having lived and recreated in ID for more than a few years. And, in the most likely scenario, it will not affect gaining access to fully surrounded public parcels without a bonafide right of way or permission to trespass.

It is the Socialist/Communist way to take that which you envy.

Read my sig line. Get your ass out there and BUY it!

Hey dummy, see acesknights post. That ground has been paid for for fuucking ever. God damn use your head for more than a hat rack!!

Exactly, or let the outfitters hog it to themselves. Talk about socialist/communist!!! Haha😂😂

Corner crossing will have no affect on the old fugg from Idaho.


It doesn’t apply to road hunters.

Aces, I know how you blow your top and get all pissy when anyone dare disagree with you. And I do feel sorry for those living under you roof when you read this.

But no. "We" do not pay for access. Otherwise owners of adjacent private holdings would be getting a check in the mail.

If you want to cross a man's property, do it in FAA controlled airspace. Just like downtown.

Have you ever heard of "Corner Crossing" in any city? Did not think so.

I did see once where some people were jumping a corner for access from a public parking area into the back lot of a restaurant. The owners of the adjacent properties put a stop to it post haste.

Yeah, sure, that's applicable.

That is why we ride and lead pack horses six hours from the truck. Just so we can pitch a tent on another road.

Jesus! What a fugging idiot!

Idaho idiotshooter, do you hunt Wyoming?

Why in the holy fugg would I hunt Wyoming when I live in Idaho?

Living in Idaho surely does not prevent one from recognizing further incursions of Socialist Doctrine.

Then STFU. Or buy boots.

Roadhunter.

Ok, then shut your yap until said law come to Idaho, and it will. PS, Idaho pales in comparison to anything in Wyoming.😘

LOL, not any more.

That's a lie, you posted a couple ratty whitetails and call that a "win"?

Hilarious 😂

Really, I can drive 60 miles and kill a bull in Wyoming?

I hardly think so.

Aces asked, "How in thefuck does crossing from one piece of public property to another piece of public property affect anyone?"

It affects them because it allows other people to hunt the public land they previously had all to themselves.

Fuuck I drove 6 hours for 20 years to kill 2 of your whitetail every year.😂😂

You're going to scream like a scalded cat when the DOI issues some pertinent access language here soon...you heard it hear first, and will apply to Idaho.

Dude!

Making sense is not allowed here.

Yes, that's why I normally avoid it.....

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.

Wasn’t trying to be a smart ass. I just thought it was an important distinction. A right granted by government can be taken away by one. A right endowed by one’s Creator cannot. Best wishes.

Let him build his fence, then when hunters build a sufficient device or ladder to get across the corner which puts them not touching his itty bitty point of contact, tough sheit for Mr. Eshelman. Better yet, that county has a one man one vote law just as does the whole USA. The counties involved could put a surtax on large land holdings with one price for the first 1000 acres and pay through the nose for anything over that. Progressive taxation is legal and tax exemptions are legal. The power to tax is the power to destroy and it should be considered with this ass of a man.

When you get down to it just imagine how small the point of contact is when two corners meet.

I should have been corrected on my wording.

Didn’t plan on coming is this a invite🤣

I’m good with the ladder thing. Same as with a helicopter.

Using taxation to destroy an individual or seize his property seems like the worst side of socialism. Class envy, or covetousness, can drive a lot of behaviors. How could one support this and then oppose liberals for the redistribution of wealth?

Okay it is this simple.

Why have corner crossings been unavailable for the last 150 years? For prospecting, for grazing, for home steading.

Pretty simple, because it is a violation of private property rights, a taking of the owners' deeded properties, thus against the law.

The law under discussion was written to keep land barons from running home steaders off of public lands, often times which the land baron had previously used for grazing. Range wars were fought and people died over such disputes.

The last sentence clearly states, the land owner is under no obligation to let such persons cross his property.


Every one of you guys (except Buzzy) bitch and moan about modern judges legislating from the bench. Justifiably so.

Until you personally have something to gain from the change in ruling. Then great! Legislate on!

What a bunch of hypocrites!

As I have said many times here. You have every right to be on such lands. You don't have a right to cross private land to get there. Fortunately, modern technology gives us means to do the former without doing the latter.

If it is important enough to you.....hire that helicopter.

If there is so much landlocked terrain, and so incredibly much game on those lands? Hell, a whole new industry could grow up around charter flights, and outfitters to cater to the hunters.

Such charter service already exists for many wilderness areas.

Otherwise, if you want to cross a man's property, pay what HE asks for the privilege. Just as you would expect on your own property at home.

I don't care if a man owns 10,000 sq feet, or 10 million acres, whether it is valued at $10/acre or $1,000,000/sq ft. Every sq ft is just as sancrosanct.

I fully expect the Supremes to reverse this decision. If it gets there before Biden and his ilk can pack the courts.

I can hardly believe what I read. You are comparing a corner crossing to a drone taking pictures of kids at a pool and taking pictures into their bedroom. Packing pictures of little kids and flying drones 20' from a house is so different from corner crossing . Flying a drone and taking pictures is stalking and harassment ... And to call a guy a socialist for corner crossing is just foolish. How bout I say land owners that complain about people corner crossing are stealing public land to use for themselves. I think my last statement is very close to what some land owners are trying to do. They clearly want public land for themselves and that right there is socialism.. The entitled think they get more than they deserve. Sounds Bernie Sanders mentality to me. SOME land owners have an entitlement thought mentality. One poster here did say some hunters flew on to public land ... It is legal ,, but the land owners had a fit, thinking it was also their airspace and it isn't, especially if they are not low from the ground. Mark my words, there will be people shot over this issue.

Buz plz don’t kid yourself

I can hear it already ,, I don't know what it is like,, or I would change my mind if it happened to me... Ok, let me tell you to the people that think this way. I own a piece of land in NW Wis. It is in Price co. It is at the end of Down River Road. I own the end of the road, the land across the road, and likely the trail where hunters walk to the public land. It is on the corner of the property.. I pick up hunters junk every single year , they spin doughnuts and drive ATV's where they shouldn't. Most of the maps say I own the land there, but some don't . To pay a surveyer , and try to keep these people off would be a stretch. I won't even bother . It is a small corner about 50'x50'... SO there, I am not one of these [bleep] to try stopping public land hunters,, and there is a chance I could keep hunters from accessing several thousand acres. It is not worth the fight and I could very well loose in court anyway. SOme of the hunters are the same as the Wyoming land owners , they think they can do what they want cause " they have been here for XXXX years . I bet many of the Wyoming land owners will ignore the court decision and harass the hunters .

I don't think you will get the votes of Justices Gorsuch or Barrett and without them you are sunk.

How much contact is there where corners meet?

Large landowners run roughshod over the public in my state also. For instance the wealthiest family in Louisiana has land holdings containing 100s of thousands of acres. On a 3000+ acre tract near me where they have destroyed the Parish (county) roads with loads of over 80,000 pounds they pay a little over $200 a year in road maintenance tax. I was at a dumpster for a short time recently and 7 log trucks exited the parish road. But don't try to use one of their roads if they cave in a culvert and block you.

Loaded 18 wheelers do thousands of times the damage to roads as does grandma's car but she has to weave and dodge the damage to get to her little 40 acre homestead.

For the record, I own a couple of hundred acres of timber, and over 100 acres of pasture in addition to what we lease, so I'm not against land ownership but large landowners should have to pay their share and should be forced by whatever means to facilitate reasonable travel. One place I own has 3/4 mile of navigable water frontage and I have a deed to the middle of the bayou but I wouldn't dream of trying to prevent boats or swimmers or whatever from using it.

Typically a fence on a property line has the cost legally split by the adjoining owners.

What would be mildly entertaining is if there is a federal law mandating any land seized for public purposes that is not used for public purpose must be offered for sale to the original owners/their heirs for the original acquisition price.

The teeth gnashing is already starting here in NM by LO’s and reservations that have been following this closely. Between this and the recent ruling in NM regarding stream access, LO’s stand to lose millions in property values.

How?

Yeah, they better have some really damn good surveyors.

The level of relief I feel knowing that four guys from Missouri were able to hop a fence in Wyoming so they could shoots them some deers without legal repercussion is so overwhelming.

LOL

Because without hyperbole, strawmen, and a real good imagination it’s impossible to argue against corner crossing on otherwise landlocked sections of public land.

The what ifs, and red herrings is all there is. Unless a guy wants to argue Tejas style where it’s all private and you pay a trespass fee to take your kid to catch bluegills or shoot a gopher.

RE: the statement in bold

If corner crossing, the simple act of stepping over a point of land and perhaps violating a few square inches, perhaps a square foot of air space constitutes a "taking" of property could it not be said conversely that the act of using, in a proprietary manner, the public property on the other side of the corner crossed is a "taking" of public lands for private use?

And, re: the law having been established for 150 years and now you think an activist judge has overturned it. I do not recall seeing an answer to my statement earlier in this thread that laws are not really "settled" in perpetuity and mentioned the recent overturning of NY laws in the Bruen case. There are many, many more cases in which previously established laws have been overturned. You and I may not agree on the wisdom of the overturning of some of those laws, however the fact is they were overturned thereby making "settled" law now unsettled.

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. Many of theses properties spent a bunch of money on fisheries projects and had world class fishing and profited from leases and or had water to themselves. People paid a premium for exclusive use that they no longer have.

The corner crossing issue is the same, people paid a premium for exclusive use of XXX amount of acres that they may now have only X. A lot of these properties were paying a low lease fee for the public ground, but in essence we’re able to utilize it as private. I know of 2 places that this will open up large tracts of public ground that outfitters are now paying a trespass fee to cross the deeded and pretty much have exclusive use of the public ground. The outfitters still have the advantage of the road systems that the public hunter wont have, but one of the properties I guarantee he won’t be in there alone anymore.

Don't know anything bout the stream issue, but the corner crossin properties haven't lost a dime.

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.

You and I seem to see it the same way shinbone.

Along with a particular judge in the matter.

Now, let's hope the 10th Circuit, should it get there, sees it like us.

Any apple trees there 🤣🤣

You won’t be rubbing my face in anything. Unlike you and your local cohorts, some people can be open minded and see things as they truly are, not how we want them to be or how we want it spun.

With your wealth of knowledge In everything, you might want to school the local real estate agents and LO’s. I’ll be sure and tell the lady that writes my checks that Buzzy said she hasn’t/won’t lose any value in her mile of river front property, I’m sure she’ll be a lot more comfortable knowing a blowhard from Wyoming has his finger on the pulse of NM real estate.

Oh I see, you finally came clean with your bias. Its 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?

Your reading comprehension is lacking. Like I said, the ruling is right.

The loss of value will not affect mine or her lifestyle, but nice try.

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 I 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.

Hey T, hope spring in your part of AK is beneficial to your serenity and sanity!

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.

I know in my case, my little 7 Acre RANCH! is surrounded by BLM land on three sides and the county road on the other. No one is building behind me unless BLM sells off that land, which would seem rather unlikely. Believe me, the "surrounded by public land" will be used in advertising should we ever sell the place. My neighbors, a couple within a 150 yards or so across the road, are already close enough to me. I find it quite comforting no one will be building behind me. And I love being able to go under or over our common fence and be hunting/hiking etc without having to even go out our driveway and 70 yards north to the gate into that land, as the commoners have to do.

I'm not sure about NM, but I seem to recall there are a couple of States that only allow use of creeks/waterways if one does not set foot on the streambed. No high water line stuff there. Just don't touch bottom.

Enjoy your day up there.

That is correct. Until last year, a LO. could apply through the state and get an exemption to the “navigable waterway”. Just about all exemptions were granted. It was trespassing if a person waded/boated up/down a waterway.


It had been like that for a long time, so people paid a premium to have exclusive rights to their water front. Many of these properties spent a bunch of money on fisheries projects to build their own quality waters.


Regardless of anyone’s beliefs on corner crossing and/or stream access, it will/can have an affect on value. To think otherwise is crazy talk.

Yep, same here. I got folks wading through my chunk fishin, kayaking, stealing MY fish and agates!!! But I don’t care. Folks are enjoying themselves. It does kinda irritate when they leave bait containers in my yard, which isn’t very often.

Haha, this was directed at “Alwaysbitingpillows”. 😆

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.

Paul,

you're from LA, I hear they make good sausage down there. Better watch out or folks here will accuse you of loving the sausage also.

Oh, wait, they already have!

As much as I dislike some of BHA's political leanings, I'm sorta happy they helped those fellows with their court case.

They need to work on some other items though, and maybe start supporting more 2A stuff?

Exactly. Dunno about the sausage though!😂

Huge win for sportsman, again thanks to all involved.👊🏻

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.

Congrats buzz your still a fugkin maroon 🤣

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.

Yes sir.....I don't look at property listings very much but I absolutely have seen clauses in realty listings promoting a particular property's accessibility to public lands, and I absolutely won't believe the listed price isn't influenced by that.

I know in one particular case of mine, when looking at a particular property that I didn't end up purchasing, the appraiser's report indicated it bordered public land and as such the appraised value was raised due to that.

A few points to address.

1'st The reference to a drone in your yard. The point was made that no trespass occurs if no foot prints are left behind. That is a completely false assertion.

2'nd Every sq foot of your property and mine is sacrosanct. It is ours to do with as we please. Absent any contractual obligations or code violations anyway. If the landowner wishes to put razor wire 20 feet high right up to that microscopic dot which is the corner. He has every right to do so.

3'rd This is a very dangerous precedent, and yes it is a precedent, or the lawsuit would have never made it to court. Eshelman would have never gotten the hunters arrested in the first place. BLM and USFS would not have recognized it as illegal practice since their inception.


4'th This is just old Buzzy's foot in the door. IF this decision is allowed to stand, next year or the year after Buzzy will be back asking for donations so he can fight to get horse back access at the corners, and then ATVs, and pretty soon he will sue to force landowners to provide handicapped access. And at every step Buzzy gets his percentage of the take. You know he ain't doing this schitt for free. His ethics have been exposed across the internet. His and old Wayne LaPierre.


5'th In reference to Bruen. The Bruen decision threw out bad law which was contrary to COTUS. This is the exact opposite. This decision is attempting to establish new law which is contrary to COTUS.

6'th As far as the so called Judge and lawyers defending this decision so vociferously. So have the judges and lawyers defended every wrong decision of the 9'th until it was reversed.

7'th Hey if corner crossing is good in remote Wyoming, it is good on your postage stamp yard or estate where ever you live. As long as I desire to reach what is on the other side of the fence. That is as long as I don't leave a foot print? Right?

8'th Just because something feels good to you does not make it right. Just like Covid checks. They should have never been printed, whether they had Trump's name across the front or Biden's.

9'th Mineral Rights????? Really?? You went there? Do you have a 5 year old mentality, or is it that you think your audience does.

If you can not convince them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull schitt! Right Buzzy.

Obviously, if mineral rights to a property have been sold/withheld/what ever, access to develop those minerals is included in the sale.

No one has mentioned this landowner got greedy and sued the 4 guys for 7 million dollars. Someone should’ve told the landowner leave good enough alone. Up here in Alaska we have our own issues and it’s not corner crossing it’s the feds attempting to shut down millions of acres of federal lands to non subsistence hunters.

I certainly agree with this assessment about BHA's bogus involvement in the case. They did virtually NOTHING but grandstand and attempt to take credit for the result- which leaves more resources for BHA's anti-gun activities.

Buzzy is a master bullschit artist as well as a loser

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.

Good grief!

The Creator is on board with denying public land access.

Reach harder. That's ludicrous.

That's not the way it works with eminent domain and you know that damn good and well. I've been through this before and you take what the government "courts" decide not what you think it's worth.

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.

Title 49 US Code 40103 says:
“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”

WTF are we arguing about?

I haven’t been interested enough to read all the links and what not. But apparently if you imagine a checkerboard pattern scenario where two public tract corners meet, is it legal to step directly over the corner from one tract to the next? I guess in the theory you could precisely do it without stepping on private property . In the real world private property gets used to a degree to accomplish this. I’m not sure if this is the crux, but it seems it is from certain posts.

The first pdf document that comes up when using the search query "corner crossing" on BLM's site pertains to BLM land in Wyoming. From that document:

"What does the law say with
regard to corner crossing?

There is no specific state or federal
laws regarding corner crossings. Corner
crossings in the checkerboard land pattern
area or elsewhere are not considered legal
public access."

Not only is that not "definitive" it doesn't even make sense according to how US law works.

I feel real sorry for the guys selling their ranches at such high prices that only Hollywood elites or Bill Gates can afford them. Need more of the peoples land access to get more money. Boo boo. Edk

2'nd. If the landowner wishes to fence it, as you say, the public has a right to see the surveys that establish the the fence lines, just as I would have the right to see the survey if someone wanted to fence the boundary to my property, especially if their fences are restricting access to my property. And, considering trespass, the landowner doing the fencing better make sure they are tighter than the proverbial Dick's hatband so that when a stiff breeze blows no portion, not even a point of a barb on the razor wire intrudes into the public airspace. And oh, let's not forget the necessity of No Trespassing signage rules in some states. The landowner may have to go to some expense to cover those costs too.

3rd. It may perhaps be precedential. Good, if it opens other areas of public land to public use that have been co-opted by private landowners for their own use. Perhaps, BLM and USFS have been wrong in their interpretation "since inception".

4th, foot in the door? Perhaps, and those other issues you mention can then be fought in court as is the prerogative of the People. Buzz may perhaps get his take....Capitalizm at it's finest?

5th. Assuming Bruen threw out bad law, then why not assume this decision is throwing out "bad law" or perhaps a bad interpretation that has been around and never (successfully?) challenged before. As I mentioned earlier, no law is "settled" as we have seen multiple times in history. Never forget "bad" is one person's view, "good" another's.

6th. So have judges and attorneys done so with almost every law on the books, whether the law was overturned or upheld. It's the nature of that beast, the Judicial System. Shall we toss that system and let appointed Agency heads of BLM and USFS make the rules without judicial oversight?

7th. ??? Really? How would one accomplish that? First, notwithstanding your "desire" to reach another parcel, do you have permission to do so? The public land in question in this case required no permission from the Govt for the hunters to access and use it for their intended purposes. Perhaps, in regards to the postage stamp yards or estates you mention, one might gain permission from the two adjoining property owners to cross on a corner of mine, or anyone else's property, and somehow manage to not actually touch any of our properties? Use the ladder trick? I do suppose, on a fenced corner of my property, if the azz hat neighbors behind me (there are none, I'm surrounded by public land) had a party and wanted someone from across the corner to come to their party, if said someone erected a ladder on the corner without touching my property there wouldn't be much I could say. Oh my, their hand crossed into my airspace???

Buzzy came out the closet and announced his re-election campaign

Well well well.

A genuine BLM document saying there is no specific state or fed law. In other words, it's all been interpretation of other statutes perhaps?

You've got the gist of it.

regarding the " private property gets used to a degree to accomplish this." part..................in most cases the only private property being used it the airspace around a dot on the ground.

Imagine an intersection of lines on the ground. Could you step from one side of the corner to the other without stepping on any of the two areas to the sides of you?

I think that was covered in one of the articles that I read. Something was quoted by the court in the late 1800s that denied the landowners the right to block access at the corners. I was reading it on my phone though and travelling so I didnt get a chance to do much research.

Land without access causes many problems and should not exist. All parcels of land should have access to them, to be legally accessed by the pwners. Its a correction of errors in the past.

Good thinking Paul

I know the facts. What is there to argue about? Stepping from public to public.

Seems pretty simple...

What really amazes me about this whole discussion is the inability of people to read and comprehend lthe law and or the court order...

you all should read the UIA of 1885 and you will see that eminent domain is not needed and you will see the that the judges interpreation is that the UIA of 1885 curtails the landowners rights. Somewhat, similar to zoning ordances that prohibit you from building right up to your property line.

Is the fed lands marked in any way out there

Corner Crossing - The American Surveyor
https://amerisurv.com/2023/02/09/corner-crossing/

"The Section Corner the gentlemen stepped over was originally set by General Land Office (GLO) Deputy Surveyor (DS) Lewis Lampton in 1878. The corner was then part of a Dependent Resurvey by GLO DS Wayne Gardner in 1967. It was at this time that DS Gardner found the original monument set by Lampton and replaced it with the Post. In the original field notes from 1967, Gardner States “…are monumented with the Bureau of Land Management’s standard iron post cadastral survey monument, consisting of an inscribed die cast brass cap, permanently mounted on a galvanized iron pipe, 29 ins. Long, 2 1/2 ins. diameter”. During the Dependent Resurvey, Gardner found “…a sandstone, 14x8x3 ins., illegibly mkd., loosely set 3 ins. in the ground”. This was the corner set by Lampton and currently buried alongside the new post."

Next question has the private properties in question been surveyed

I don't think there is enough allowable room at the junction of 4 corners to erect anything other than a strand of wire which is what's been done.

It's my understanding that the total allowable margine of error with a land survey is just a tad over a inch and that's not all in one spot.

The junction of 4 corners could be viewed much like a set of cross hairs. A 4 inch post driven precisely in the center of the junction would encroach on all 4 parcels of land involved.

It chaps the do nothing non hunters fire regulars that Buzz and BHA got this done.

Most will never set foot in Wyoming and and if they did they wouldn’t have the ability to find a corner to cross even if they had a map.

You could not block access to another private land owner that had to get through your property to access his. Why should you be able to block the public from accessing their property? I understand the possible need for gates or cattle guards at public expense to facilitate livestock containment but that is already done in places.

Even though I own some posted land it gladdens me to see this overbearing billionaire get knocked on his ass in federal court after losing his trespass case in state court.

Recently?

Ever?

Surveyed and marked?

Is broke back mountain in the map?

Yes this

If you're trying ta suggest that there's somehow a gap between the properties that's extremely unlikely, as the boundaries have remained undisputed for dozens of years, if not more than a century.

That would be WYBHA. Not bha as a whole. Remember, ol buzz never answered how much $$$ the mothership chipped in to the gofundme. He would know since it was accounted for down to the penny.

I have a sneaking suspension the avg Joe citizen funded the defense, not bha........but who knows....

From what I gather the land owners get fugked am I right ?

According to the info Strop provided it was surveyed (at least the corner in question) as recently as 1967. By the General Land Office no less.


Now, unless my geometry fails me, the four corners of the parcels in question come together in a point. Is that "point" 2.5" in diameter, as is set as a standard cadastral survey monument? If so, is that post set exactly perpendicular (hard to do on an earth shaped object?). If not, and also given the diameter of the pipe, does some part of the post actually intrude into the rancher's property.

in 1967 did they have the technology available today to shoot the property lines from that "point" in the exact direction as prescribed on the survey documents?

Basically, from what I could figure out from what I read, the exact location of the corner is not being disputed. The action of crossing over that corner from one parcel of public land to another parcel of public land is what the case revolves around. And the judge said, summarily, it is OK to cross there.

If you consider someone crossing from one corner to another corner, fugked, then the judge says yeah.,

No.

Not everyone is as lost as you.