Corner Crossing Podcast #3

[Big Fin]

We just released the third episode of what will be a four-part series on corner crossing. Maybe will require a fifth or a six, depending upon where it goes.

In this episode we talk about the status of the civil case, how civil cases are heard and settled, what remedies each party has after the civil case, how damages are calculated, what role a jury plays, what role the judge plays, and many other topics that have popped up on Hunt Talk and elsewhere.

You can find it wherever you get your podcasts. Or go to this link to listen directly - https://www.stitcher.com/show/hunt-...tion/episode/corner-crossing-part-3-211328119

If you missed the prior two episodes, here are links to those:

Part 1 - https://www.stitcher.com/show/hunt-...-crossing-part-1-history-and-trends-200625513

Part 2 - https://www.stitcher.com/show/hunt-...ssing-part-2-legal-experts-chime-in-200877144

 

[WapitiBob]

thanks much

 

[HSi-ESi]

I'm looking forward to listening to this one, the previous 2 were great.

 

[Wallydeuce]

Great info...but it stopped playing halfway in. Just me or have others had this happen?

 

[schmalts]

Thanks Randy, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[Scott85]

Great info...but it stopped playing halfway in. Just me or have others had this happen?

Just you I guess. I just finished it up.

 

[Big Fin]

How this plays out will be interesting and I'm talking about how it plays out beyond the lawsuit.

I've been trying to lay this out as purely a function of law. I don't want my desired outcome to influence how I approach something so fundamental as property rights, both public rights and private rights. I think this attempt at objectivity is what gives some of the property rights advocacy groups the interest in reaching out to me. They know I hope for a different outcome than they do. But, they listened to the podcasts and they are comfortable asking me questions.

From that, I have concluded that this lawsuit will not be the end of it, no matter how it turns out. Just too much money invested by out-of-state billionaires in landlocked public lands. And too many business models have been built around keeping the public off these landlocked public lands.

It is why some of these property rights groups wish the plaintiff would withdraw his case. They know that right now they have a good deal going. He has marched so far out on the plank that he has ended up with a lot of his claims being legal fiction. They are spending money on amicus briefs and helping his legal efforts. They have more at stake than he has.

This case has one landowner playing a marginal hand. He has some legal cards and he has some historical legal bias on his side. But, his legal hand is not nearly as strong as he wants people to believe. He might be the one playing the hand, but the chips he is pushing into the pot are not just his; the biggest chips are owned by anyone currently benefiting from landlocked public lands. That's a much bigger game at play than just this case, and far beyond hunting access.

If the hunters prevail in this case and Vegas would let me bet on the next steps, I would put $10,000 on the bet that we will see an attack to sell these public lands that is greater than any effort we have seen to date. The mechanisms used will be all kinds of strange ideas, far beyond just the "Transfer to the States," the easiest path they see toward that goal. It will be legal action, state constitutional changes, Congressional effort, state legislative efforts, whatever protects the investment they made under the premise that they could own these lands without have to pay for them.

There is just too much at stake for groups like the plaintiff. A huge amount of these lands are concentrated among a group of billionaires with vast power and political connections. If the case, after all appeals are exhausted, gives the public access to these adjacent corners, there will be a huge effort to sell these and other landlocked public lands. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

We all hope for the best possible outcome for these hunters and access to the lands in question. We owe a lot of gratitude to these hunters and those who have helped push this case forward, specifically Wyoming BHA, @BuzzH, @JM77, and those who are helping fund their cause. If this case and the appeals goes in favor of the hunters, we better brace ourselves for a huge fight to keep these public lands.

And if the case does go against the hunters, that's another big issue and that is part of what we briefly touched on in the podcast.

 

[Scott85]

I feel the decision is going to have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. The main issue is the airspace, the decision boils down how much the landowner has control over. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, stated a state cannot give access to private property without compensation as its a violation to the the 5th and 14th amendment.

 

[Big Fin]

I feel the decision is going to have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. The main issue is the airspace, the decision boils down how much the landowner has control over. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, stated a state cannot give access to private property without compensation as its a violation to the the 5th and 14th amendment.

Maybe, or at least to the 10th Circuit Appellate Court. Lots of compelling reasons why it would/could.

In the podcast Tom and Nick commented how law evolves as society evolves. In this case, we have some new trends the court likely has never had to address; 1) new technology that makes it easy to identify these parcels, 2) new technology that makes it easier to navigate this checkerboard, 3) trends of buying private acres with the intent to lock up public acres, 4) a new wave of non-resident landowners, and 5) new business models and profit efforts based on excluding people from public land.

Time will tell.

 

[Irrelevant]

If the hunters prevail in this case and Vegas would let me bet on the next steps, I would put $10,000 on the bet that we will see an attack to sell these public lands that is greater than any effort we have seen to date. The mechanisms used will be all kinds of strange ideas, far beyond just the "Transfer to the States," the easiest path they see toward that goal. It will be legal action, state constitutional changes, Congressional effort, state legislative efforts, whatever protects the investment they made under the premise that they could own these lands without have to pay for them.

There is just too much at stake for groups like the plaintiff. A huge amount of these lands are concentrated among a group of billionaires with vast power and political connections. If the case, after all appeals are exhausted, gives the public access to these adjacent corners, there will be a huge effort to sell these and other landlocked public lands. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

Assuming you're right, under what conditions would you support it divesting in them? Strictly a land exchange? 1:1, 1:2? Specific habitat values? Added bonuses for recreational features?

I am always a bit wishy washy on consolidation, see the Crazies, maybe it's good, maybe it's bad... I just don't know. Would I trade the public sections of elk mt for teh private sections SW of Rawlins? IDK.

 

[Big Fin]

Assuming you're right, under what conditions would you support it divesting in them? Strictly a land exchange? 1:1, 1:2? Specific habitat values? Added bonuses for recreational features?

I am always a bit wishy washy on consolidation, see the Crazies, maybe it's good, maybe it's bad... I just don't know. Would I trade the public sections of elk mt for teh private sections SW of Rawlins? IDK.

Not sure if I would support any divestiture. If the deal was just so good, then that's an option. But experience shows me that the deal is seldom good for the public when the private party thinks they own gold and the public only has tin.

If the hunters prevail in this case, the lands are no longer quasi-worthless, so the equivalent value needed to meet the Congressional requirements on land exchanges suddenly increases. The values increase to levels few private holders would want to pay for via trading other land they own. And thus I think they would try to implement efforts to sell these lands rather than trade or use easements.

It will be interesting to see where it all goes.

 

[300stw]

its always been a thought in my head, that the amount of money at stake with landowners, realestate people, ect. corner crossing will never be legalized in the sense of , every connecting corner is accesible, maybe some programs will arise to fund purchases of easements,
i imagine there are many ,many, attorneys fixing ta be sue happy and make money if the landowner loses,,,

im glad to see randy lay it out it as to the dollars at stake. vs. how decisions get made,,,
one poor guys thoughts, carry on

 

[Nameless Range]

Would a bill like this have implications for corner crossing solutions in the future?

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/LC0330.pdf

 

[3855WIN]

Thanks, I’ll give it a listen.

It seems that if it involved private owners only, a corner owner would at least be able to step over to his other square of land.