Corner Crossing latest

[Cornbread]

Doubtful, in no state is there a prohibition about floating a river to fish, there is no "exclusivity" in access. The only thing that would change would be a few people wading the river up to the ordinary high water mark (maybe).

Its possible it could bump land values, but it wouldn't be significant, exactly why the prices along streams/rivers in Montana didn't decline a red cent when stream access passed.

Its perception, but not reality. A nice talking point to try to "prove" how horrific public access is. A good talking point for real estate agents who perceive they might lose a nickel on a land sale. Reality proved those fears are unfounded and truly as dumb as they sound.

It's going to be the exact same scenario when corner crossing is legal. Really, how much more traffic is a several thousand acre ranch going to experience, to the point that it devalue's the property? I would say none.

I would say, ya just never know what could happen, right? Some properties will be affected and others won't. Here in Floirda, we are going through a similar uproar over people in the panhandle (Destin, FL) that now have "private beaches". You can thank that bum Huckabee for starting the problem (turning public beaches into private beaches). Then he sold his house at a huge profit and moved the hell away. POS. There's a recent video in Youtube about this. You all need to watch it. KEEP YOUR MIND OPEN. There are some similarities to the Wyoming case in some sense. Property law is definitely a clusterfuck. Riparian law is an even bigger one. I have a top real estate attorney in Boca Raton that has pointed that out. He has a ton more experience than I. The young attorney from Ohio that argued the case for the Missouri hunters came to the case with a clean slate. Without any baggage. He didn't know a damn thing about Wyoming corner crossing. I believe he was a criminal attorney, if I'm not mistaken.

No resumes please, LOLOL.

 

[Cornbread]

I think that what many are tired of is the agribusiness's sucking up what was supposed to keep the family farms and ranches afloat.

I have no grievance, and in fact, fully support keeping legacy ranches/farms in the family any way we can. That includes cheap taxes, subsidies, loan programs, etc. etc.

What I don't like is the agribusiness's gaming the system, which puts significant strain on the very people those programs are supposed to protect.

YMMV.

Agreed. Im with ya there 110%

 

[Cornbread]

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest - Alerts & Closures

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest - Alerts & Closures

www.fs.usda.gov

Fighting for Flint access – pikecountygeorgia.com

pikecountygeorgia.com

Georgia idiotic aristocracy loves blocking public from fishing in a boat on streams.

There ya go. Read my post about Florida beaches going from solely public to private because of jackass Huckabee. Mr. great guy. Let me add this. The reasoning behind turning public beaches into private is that pubklic beaches can be filled with rifraff. 2 weeks ago we had a 16 yr old kid with a last name of Guzman selling marijuana on the beach. Gets into a fight and pulls out a 9mm to cap somebody's ass. Volusia Sheriff's was on him like a duck on a Junebug. Turns out he's got a long string of felonies. You all have a great thing with block management. The private landowner essentially is an extra enforcement mechanism for poaching and bad hunters. Yet, becasue it's private land, special interest groups can't force their political agenda's as easily like they can with public land. Just another thing to consider. Block management can more easily and quickly throw off the rifraff, and maybe keep them off. Food for thought.

 

[Buffs35]

 

[Straight Arrow]

All we are all saying is: There's more than one way to skin a cat. Not trying to criticize you. Just open your mind. There are no hard and fast rules in politics and the court system. When i posted this, I was trying to foster discussion. Sometimes, when you toss out an idea, it might seem ridiculous at first, but then when somebody else sees a slightly different angle to turn a skinch and really get at the meat of the problem, it becomes a genius idea. These "special landowners" have enjoyed public property without paying a dime for years and years. The public outnumbers them, so we are not helpless. Its too bad this country is gagging on favortism. I hate it. But if that's what it takes to open up millions of acres of public land, so be it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Im a libertarian at heart. On the surface having more public land sounds wonderful. But look at what the special interests are doing with grizzly bear, wolf populations.

You could even say that the landlocked public land is actually say 50% in their control and should be included as if they own 50% more acreage. Or whatever %.

Not sure where you're coming from, but I think we are on different pages, maybe different books, regarding the corner crossing issues in Wyoming and Montana.
But good on you for public lands access advocating.

 

[manitou1]

But if corner crossing were an option to access it, the question is whether it would decrease the price someone else would pay for it.

What you value about your land is not necessarily what value a potential buyer would value about it.

I don't disagree that perhaps small pieces like yours see some value inflation. What Freddie is claiming is that a several thousand acre ranch within the checkerboard is going to be devalued a significant amount because a handful of users a year HIKE a mile or two into public land while crossing a corner.

I don't buy that for a second...

In the big picture, It really doesn't matter, regardless of parcel size.
Public land is public land and does not belong to one individual.
I do see what you are saying though.

 

[Wildabeest]

But if corner crossing were an option to access it, the question is whether it would decrease the price someone else would pay for it.

What you value about your land is not necessarily what value a potential buyer would value about it.

I don't disagree that perhaps small pieces like yours see some value inflation. What Freddie is claiming is that a several thousand acre ranch within the checkerboard is going to be devalued a significant amount because a handful of users a year HIKE a mile or two into public land while crossing a corner.

I don't buy that for a second...

I’m gonna lower my unsolicited bid on the N-Bar from a dollar to fiddy cent. That’ll show ‘em!

 

[Elky Welky]

but that doesn’t matter as the increased value wasn’t theirs to keep in the first place.

Just going to re-emphasize this important point.

 

[Thx1138]

Meet the appellate Judges….https://wyofile.com/who-are-the-judges-hearing-tuesdays-corner-crossing-appeal/

 

[wytex]

Watch live ?

 

[P dog]

Sounding good so far!

 

[seeth07]

I am very impressed with the questions and points the judges are making

 

[P dog]

I have a good feeling that the lower court ruling will be upheld. The 10th circuit did not say when their decision will be made. Anyone know if there is time limit for when they have to respond?

 

[seeth07]

You don't get a lot of time to defend your position do you?

 

[BuzzH]

I have a good feeling that the lower court ruling will be upheld. The 10th circuit did not say when their decision will be made. Anyone know if there is time limit for when they have to respond?

Attorneys are saying 3-4 months for a decision.

Liking the odds, but in court nothing is a given.

I'll be interested to get the attorneys take on how they think it went.

 

[seeth07]

Attorneys are saying 3-4 months for a decision.

Liking the odds, but in court nothing is a given.

I'll be interested to get the attorneys take on how they think it went.

With how knowledgeable the judges were with their questions to challenge or even agree agree with each attorneys point of view, I almost feel as if they already had a pretty good idea of how they are going to rule.

 

[Addicting]

Attorneys are saying 3-4 months for a decision.

Liking the odds, but in court nothing is a given.

I'll be interested to get the attorneys take on how they think it went.

I have to go back and listen to it again, but I’m pretty sure the judge referred to accessing the public as a right. They were more questioning on where that right ends. Examples of with the paved road, snowmobile, ATV, disabled Hunter type of question.

What I didn’t hear was them denying was that the right existed. The question was how much to issue?

 

[seeth07]

I still can't get over that "their day in court" was really just "their hour in court". I was uneducated on how little time is spent on each case while heard in the courtroom for all of these appeals.

 

[P dog]

It sounded like the courtroom emptied out quickly after the case was heard. One of the judges could be heard saying "i guess we know which case everyone was here for."

 

[seeth07]

It sounded like the courtroom emptied out quickly after the case was heard. One of the judges could be heard saying "i guess we know which case everyone was here for."

the youtube viewership went all the way down to 18 by the middle of the next case. I stayed and listened to the next two before I realized that without any prior knowledge of the case, its really hard to follow along.