Checkerboard Pro-Active Solutions?

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Hi All,

I'm sure this has come up before so apologize in advance for my ignorance.

Are there viable solutions to the conundrum of so much public land locked behind the checkerboards and inability to corner hop?

Could the BLM, if properly inspired, decide to adjust their leases to only allow grazing rights on those public checkerboard sections if the private landowners allowed some form of public access at least to the public sections?

Saw an article that WY is looking to buy checkerboard land, but have there been attempts of land swaps which would consolidate the public in one area and private lands in another, thereby allowing the public owned lands to actually be used by the public?

Is this crazy to think about as impossible or is it some form of solution viable and worth pursuing in the future as a pro-active measure to gain significant more access to public land hunters?

Thanks,

Steve

 

[Deleted member 28227]

WY passed and it was purchased by a mining company.

I think it could be worked out if the fed was motivated to do so, but they are not.

 

[Schaaf]

Best idea I’ve seen proposed was from @Nameless Range

It’s somewhere in the archives but the gist of it was a fund designed to purchase or transfer a very small chunk out of the public section and swap it for a small chunk of the private. There would be many ways to find the funding for it but it would still require a willing private landowner to move forward so definitely not a universal solution.

Edit: Nevermind, it was @wllm1313 with this idea. Here’s the thread.

Corner Crossing: A Solution

This is another thread prompted by the most recent Hunt Talk podcast. In that podcast, Randy did not sound hopeful that the issue of Corner Crossing would be resolved cleanly. I agree. I have been hearing about corner crossing all of my adult life, and I would be willing to bet that 15 years...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[rwc101]

I know of two WY state reps working across the aisle on a corner crossing bill. Who knows if anything will come of it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Best idea I’ve seen proposed was from @Nameless Range

It’s somewhere in the archives but the gist of it was a fund designed to purchase or transfer a very small chunk out of the public section and swap it for a small chunk of the private. There would be many ways to find the funding for it but it would still require a willing private landowner to move forward so definitely not a universal solution.

Eminent domain 4sqft on every corner. Boom done.

 

[ccc23454]

Idaho has done best job to provide temp checkerboard issue resolvement, no blaze orange

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think in the specific case of the OXY to Orion, sections you could probably settle it with a big Tax break.

I'm sure Orion doesn't really care about the surface rights, so you could probably work out some massive conservation easement and make the whole thing public.

The land is in CO/UT and WY would in effect be paying for the land, but maybe you could get it massively discounted. 100 MM tax break ?

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Ok cool, thanks guys. So there is hope IF there is the will and funds to get it done. If we can set up the political advocacy org then maybe this could be on the list of potential issues to try to build the will for.

I don't know how it'd stack up with other issues out there, but there are a heck of a lot of acres locked in checkerboards.

s

 

[406LIFE]

If you talk with landowners who have tried to do this, the ask is usually along the lines of 2 acres private for one public. A great many LO would like to have their property contiguous for many reasons. If the asks were one for one, I think you'd see this move quickly. This is based on expetiences with BLM and USFS on Montana.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Legally simple, politically difficult. States could make clear once and for all that corner crossing is not trespass (free solution), states or fed could use eminent domain for small corner easements (like @wllm1313 mentioned) at a very small cost (fair market value of a small patch is almost nothing and court cases don't require the the "exclusion value" of the property be included in the takings valuation, land swaps (pricey, time consuming and complicated), etc. But seems like landowners are more passionate about forcing their wishes on legislators than public land users, are so I would not hold my breath.

 

[Beignet]

A 2015 Outdoor Life article says that the 1979 SCOTUS case, Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, acts as a sort of de facto guidance as to how states manage the corner crossing. That case centered around a requested road easement, not foot access.

Is there a reason that some litigious advocacy group hasn’t taken some sportsman’s corner crossing citation to a federal court to try to challenge the issue nationally?

 

[jakenbake]

Is there a reason that some litigious advocacy group hasn’t taken some sportsman’s corner crossing citation to a federal court to try to challenge the issue nationally?

There isn't a well-enough funded litigious-enough group that would be interested in resolving that issue to take it up. At least, not yet. Also, it might be pretty tricky to get that citation removed to federal court when in all likelihood it would be a state citation that was issued.

 

[Beignet]

Also, it might be pretty tricky to get that citation removed to federal court when in all likelihood it would be a state citation that was issued.

That’s the part I thought might have been tricky. Not sure how exactly cases get the bump to federal court, but it happens. Thinking of say, Heller v. DC, or any of the sparse gun issues SCOTUS hears.

Agreed though, not an issue on the forefront of many of the litigious-minded groups. Whereas many of the groups advocating for access state that they’re not tying to solve problems in a litigious, adversarial way.

 

[Fremont15]

If you’re hunting in WY just cross at the corners as long as the first piece you step on is legally accessible from a road. Corner crossing isn’t illegal in WY.

 

[1_pointer]

Could the BLM, if properly inspired, decide to adjust their leases to only allow grazing rights on those public checkerboard sections if the private landowners allowed some form of public access at least to the public sections?

Unless the grazing regulations have changed in the last 12 years, there is no way for the BLM to do this.

IME, the issue with land exchanges are twofold: 1. valuations of the exchanged lands and 2. Congressional approval/funding. I've worked on exchanges that made sense for both parties that were ultimately shot down because of those two issues above.

 

[Bob-WY]

If you’re hunting in WY just cross at the corners as long as the first piece you step on is legally accessible from a road. Corner crossing isn’t illegal in WY.

Not true, not true at all. It's really county by county, ask the local warden, I did. My county they will prosecute unless you can find the survery marker for the corner and step over that. GPS/ONx etc, are not perfect and you could be off by feet or yards, hence trespassing. So technically you're probably right, corner crossing isn't illegal, but you have to be sure you are actually at the corner.

 

[Werty]

I personally would like to see the grazing rates increased for lands that are not made accessible by foot, or equivalent acreage made available that is accessible.

 

[Fremont15]

Not true, not true at all. It's really county by county, ask the local warden, I did. My county they will prosecute unless you can find the survery marker for the corner and step over that. GPS/ONx etc, are not perfect and you could be off by feet or yards, hence trespassing. So technically you're probably right, corner crossing isn't illegal, but you have to be sure you are actually at the corner.

Bob-WY, yes it’s true that certain misguided county attorneys and/or deputies may issue a citation for corner crossing. However, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In a corner crossing case where the hunter is using updated mapping software, there is no way he or she could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why nobody has ever been convicted of this in WY. I am a police officer and have issued dozens of citations for criminal trespass (WY 6-3-303). In a corner crossing instance, sufficient probable cause just doesn’t exist for a charge.

 

[Beignet]

Not true, not true at all. It's really county by county, ask the local warden, I did. My county they will prosecute unless you can find the survery marker for the corner and step over that. GPS/ONx etc, are not perfect and you could be off by feet or yards, hence trespassing. So technically you're probably right, corner crossing isn't illegal, but you have to be sure you are actually at the corner.

Looks like intent is important here, from WYGF’s website:

“In 2004, the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion that “corner crossing” from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt that other public parcel, depending on the factual situation involved, may not violate the game and fish trespass statute, but may be a criminal trespass violation. The factual situation would include whether the person doing the “corner crossing” was hunting or intended to hunt private land at the time the corner was crossed.”

Appreciate that, Mr. 2004 AG. (Looks like it was Patrick J. Crank, now WYGF Commissioner for D1)

 

[1_pointer]

I personally would like to see the grazing rates increased for lands that are not made accessible by foot, or equivalent acreage made available that is accessible.

Arbitrary and capricious would likely ruin that idea...