Corner Crossing Podcast #4

[Big Fin]

Another long discussion about what the summary judgement ruling means, what options going forward, how close/far it gets to being precedent…..And about the FWP statement that corner crossing crossing is unlawful.

Link below or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hunt Talk Radio - Corner Crossing Part 4, What's Next? | EP 216 on Stitcher

In this episode of Leupold's Hunt Talk Radio, Randy is again sharing the mic with attorneys Tom and Nick, discussing the recent court ruling on the Wyoming corner crossing case. Topics covered include what the ruling says, what it doesn't say, is this precedent, what is judicial priority, where...

listen.stitcher.com

 

[mtnkid85]

Ive been waiting for this one! Thanks Randy!

 

[BuckRut]

@Big Fin. I haven't listened all the way through so maybe it's addressed in there but what is the best thing we as the hunting community can do to help further move the process along to getting corner crossing clear in the law? The answer is probably just wait and see what happens but if you have any input on what actions would be helpful and also what actions or behavior are liable to jeopardize the process would be good to add.

 

[Elky Welky]

@Big Fin. I haven't listened all the way through so maybe it's addressed in there but what is the best thing we as the hunting community can do to help further move the process along to getting corner crossing clear in the law? The answer is probably just wait and see what happens but if you have any input on what actions would be helpful and also what actions or behavior are liable to jeopardize the process would be good to add.

I am not @Big Fin, but I am a practicing attorney who has done a pretty deep dive into this in the last few weeks (and on-and-off over the past 8 years). So I can tell you there are several avenues available legally to get clarity, by order of how "easy" they would be to achieve:

1. Legislative Action in State Legislatures. Much like marijuana, CC is most likely going to be decided state-by-state by statute. So bills would need to be introduced, debated, clear both houses, and be signed by a governor.

2. Ballot Initiative: This bypasses the state houses, but the costs are excessive, and it would require millions of dollars to gather signatures/drum up public support, follow the regs to get it on the ballot, and of course, a vote.

3. Test cases in state or federal courts. If the facts demonstrate a more clear case of trespass, the law could not go well. This is where it is dangerous. The WY case was executed perfectly: the hunters used a ladder at a perfect corner in checkerboard. This is a pretty narrow circumstance, and each case would likely need to be this narrow, have to work their way up in the courts, and depending on which circuit/jurisdiction they are in, could still only apply to certain areas. The WY ruling, even if appealed, still won't make a difference in MT, for example, because WY is in the 10th circuit and MT is in the 9th. So it would only apply if...

4. US Supreme Court Decision: would have to pass from circuit courts up to SCOTUS to become supreme law of the land.

5 US Congress passes a law: Good luck.

So to go back to your question: as hunters, I would say (personal opinion), get engaged with the organizations at the forefront of this thing, become a member, and tell those orgs how you want to engage. Strength will come in numbers. Educate those around you, learn the statutes and cases in your jurisdiction, respect private property rights, look to folks like @Big Fin for guidance, reach out to your state game and fish agency (even though they may have a different opinion, as unfortunately is the case in MT right now), and above all, know where you are.

CC will always be a risk depending on where you hunt/what the map looks like, so I would certainly not advise going out on your own and trying to become the next test case. "Bad facts make bad law" and if someone goes rogue and breaks the law, trespasses, or does something in a state where the political climate will not be friendly to public land users, the consequences could be dire.

 

[manitou1]

I am not @Big Fin, but I am a practicing attorney who has done a pretty deep dive into this in the last few weeks (and on-and-off over the past 8 years). So I can tell you there are several avenues available legally to get clarity, by order of how "easy" they would be to achieve:

1. Legislative Action in State Legislatures. Much like marijuana, CC is most likely going to be decided state-by-state by statute. So bills would need to be introduced, debated, clear both houses, and be signed by a governor.

2. Ballot Initiative: This bypasses the state houses, but the costs are excessive, and it would require millions of dollars to gather signatures/drum up public support, follow the regs to get it on the ballot, and of course, a vote.

3. Test cases in state or federal courts. If the facts demonstrate a more clear case of trespass, the law could not go well. This is where it is dangerous. The WY case was executed perfectly: the hunters used a ladder at a perfect corner in checkerboard. This is a pretty narrow circumstance, and each case would likely need to be this narrow, have to work their way up in the courts, and depending on which circuit/jurisdiction they are in, could still only apply to certain areas. The WY ruling, even if appealed, still won't make a difference in MT, for example, because WY is in the 10th circuit and MT is in the 9th. So it would only apply if...

4. US Supreme Court Decision: would have to pass from circuit courts up to SCOTUS to become supreme law of the land.

5 US Congress passes a law: Good luck.

So to go back to your question: as hunters, I would say (personal opinion), get engaged with the organizations at the forefront of this thing, become a member, and tell those orgs how you want to engage. Strength will come in numbers. Educate those around you, learn the statutes and cases in your jurisdiction, respect private property rights, look to folks like @Big Fin for guidance, reach out to your state game and fish agency (even though they may have a different opinion, as unfortunately is the case in MT right now), and above all, know where you are.

CC will always be a risk depending on where you hunt/what the map looks like, so I would certainly not advise going out on your own and trying to become the next test case. "Bad facts make bad law" and if someone goes rogue and breaks the law, trespasses, or does something in a state where the political climate will not be friendly to public land users, the consequences could be dire.

No doubt both sides of the isle will be looking to make a point. The question is: "Are your pockets deep enough to make your point?"

 

[Flatbrimmer]

CC will always be a risk depending on where you hunt/what the map looks like, so I would certainly not advise going out on your own and trying to become the next test case. "Bad facts make bad law" and if someone goes rogue and breaks the law, trespasses, or does something in a state where the political climate will not be friendly to public land users, the consequences could be dire.

Just for the sake of argument, if someone goes rogue and breaks the law, and does something we all think is ballsy but ultimately unlawful, gets taken to court for it, wins in federal court, and adds case law for all of us to reference, is it worth the potential consequences?

 

[Elky Welky]

Just for the sake of argument, if someone goes rogue and breaks the law, and does something we all think is ballsy but ultimately unlawful, gets taken to court for it, wins in federal court, and adds case law for all of us to reference, is it worth the potential consequences?

Well, that's exactly what happened in WY. As I indicated above, the circumstances need to be just right. If anything is slightly off (bad facts), then the law could very well go the other way (bad law). Worth it? Answering that question, as an attorney, is a line I can't cross (pun intended).

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Well, that's exactly what happened in WY. As I indicated above, the circumstances need to be just right. If anything is slightly off (bad facts), then the law could very well go the other way (bad law). Worth it? Answering that question, as an attorney, is a line I can't cross (pun intended).

I know that’s what happened in wyo that’s why I used it as an example. The simple fact these guys said let’s risk it for da biscuit and aren’t getting hung from their toenails has us all applauding, anxiously watching their case and awaiting the verdicts. I understand your concern, and I do agree completely with you. I won’t be risking it myself, anyway. The point of the “argument” is you saying DONT DO IT, but they did it and we are happy about it. Inspired even.
You said, “Bad facts make bad laws”… what makes a fact bad? Like that we all will die eventually? That kind of “bad fact”? Lol good people break bad laws. Like these guys did! Unfortunately, though, Idk that I understand the term “bad facts”

 

[Mallardsx2]

I'm still trying to figure out how 20,000 sportsmen (even with OnX) are going to find a corner to cross in the dark. lmao.

 

[Elky Welky]

I know that’s what happened in wyo that’s why I used it as an example. The simple fact these guys said let’s risk it for da biscuit and aren’t getting hung from their toenails has us all applauding, anxiously watching their case and awaiting the verdicts. I understand your concern, and I do agree completely with you. I won’t be risking it myself, anyway. The point of the “argument” is you saying DONT DO IT, but they did it and we are happy about it. Inspired even.
You said, “Bad facts make bad laws”… what makes a fact bad? Like that we all will die eventually? That kind of “bad fact”? Lol good people break bad laws. Like these guys did! Unfortunately, though, Idk that I understand the term “bad facts”

To be extremely clear, I'm not saying don't do it, nor am I saying do it. I'm just saying proceed at your own risk, and that the facts will dictate the outcome, and there are many, many factors that will make a difference. I'm not giving any legal advice here, but I personally don't think it is wise to try and be the next test case, without having a very clear understanding of the potential consequences. As they point out at the very beginning of the podcast, the WY decision doesn't authorize any behavior, and nor am I suggesting one way or another.

"Bad facts make bad law" is a lawyer expression and I'm happy to provide clarity.

I'll give a few examples: let's say someone crosses on a corner that is not private/federal/private/federal, but something like private/federal/private/state. The federal and state land are both public land, but they are subject to different rules. Judge could find that the state's interest in protecting someone's state grazing lease outweighs the public's interest in accessing that land. Bad fact makes for a bad law.

The men who crossed in WY were not from WY, which meant that it could be decided by a Federal Court. If they were all from WY, then it would have been a WY state court decision. That could well have made a difference, because it would then not be appealed up to the 10th circuit, but instead the highest court would be the WY state supreme court.

Let's say a corner is crossed, and the hunter kills a deer and decides to drag it out. They cross back over the corner without their body physically touching the land, but the deer carcass touches the surface of the private land. A judge could rule that as trespass or "hunting without permission" which in some states is a different statute. Bad fact makes for a bad ruling.

Every little detail could make a difference. The expression "bad facts" simply means factors that could alter the outcome for the worse.

 

[Nameless Range]

@Elky Welky's posts and Randy's podcasts(I've listened to the others but not this one yet) , sure make me think that our advice to fellow hunters should be "don't do it." When the time comes to do it, it should be in consultation with lawyers, organizations, in the right place, done exactly as well as possible according to a vetted plan, so that the "bad facts to bad law" aspect are as negated as possible.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

To be extremely clear, I'm not saying don't do it, nor am I saying do it. I'm just saying proceed at your own risk, and that the facts will dictate the outcome, and there are many, many factors that will make a difference. I'm not giving any legal advice here, but I personally don't think it is wise to try and be the next test case, without having a very clear understanding of the potential consequences. As they point out at the very beginning of the podcast, the WY decision doesn't authorize any behavior, and nor am I suggesting one way or another.

"Bad facts make bad law" is a lawyer expression and I'm happy to provide clarity.

I'll give a few examples: let's say someone crosses on a corner that is not private/federal/private/federal, but something like private/federal/private/state. The federal and state land are both public land, but they are subject to different rules. Judge could find that the state's interest in protecting someone's state grazing lease outweighs the public's interest in accessing that land. Bad fact makes for a bad law.

The men who crossed in WY were not from WY, which meant that it could be decided by a Federal Court. If they were all from WY, then it would have been a WY state court decision. That could well have made a difference, because it would then not be appealed up to the 10th circuit, but instead the highest court would be the WY state supreme court.

Let's say a corner is crossed, and the hunter kills a deer and decides to drag it out. They cross back over the corner without their body physically touching the land, but the deer carcass touches the surface of the private land. A judge could rule that as trespass or "hunting without permission" which in some states is a different statute. Bad fact makes for a bad ruling.

Every little detail could make a difference. The expression "bad facts" simply means factors that could alter the outcome for the worse.

Well said dude. Sorry to make a dumb argument

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

When the time comes to do it, it should be in consultation with lawyers, organizations, in the right place, done exactly as well as possible according to a vetted plan

Couldn’t agree more. I hope there are people/groups/ lawyers getting this in the works for this year here in MT. There will be bunches of people this year corner crossing. In my opinion it probably is best to get ahead of them to whatever extent possible to avoid the bad facts/ bad law

 

[Big Fin]

Ryan Semerad, the attorney for the four hunters in the case, just sent me a link to the opinion he posted on his Word Press platform.

It's a fascinating explanation of how he sees it.

Given his immersion for the defense is in the case, the amount of knowledge he brings to it, and the legal logic he has used in guiding this along, it is surely worth reading.

Semerad on Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

Ryan Semerad’s opinion on the Wyoming Federal District Court’s corner crossing order.

justiceforcowboys.com

 

[DFS]

Ryan Semerad, the attorney for the four hunters in the case, just sent me a link to the opinion he posted on his Word Press platform.

It's a fascinating explanation of how he sees it.

Given his immersion for the defense is in the case, the amount of knowledge he brings to it, and the legal logic he has used in guiding this along, it is surely worth reading.

Semerad on Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

Ryan Semerad’s opinion on the Wyoming Federal District Court’s corner crossing order.

justiceforcowboys.com

Sounds like it’s time for “on your own adventure” “fresh tracks” or whatever it’s called these days, to hang there neck out for Montanans and make a video doing it.

 

[grizzly_]

Mr. Semerad seems to be convinced this was a home run for the protection of careful corner crossing in Wyoming and not just a step in the right direction, as many have alluded.

He makes a compelling argument.

 

[BuzzH]

Ryan Semerad, the attorney for the four hunters in the case, just sent me a link to the opinion he posted on his Word Press platform.

It's a fascinating explanation of how he sees it.

Given his immersion for the defense is in the case, the amount of knowledge he brings to it, and the legal logic he has used in guiding this along, it is surely worth reading.

Semerad on Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

Ryan Semerad’s opinion on the Wyoming Federal District Court’s corner crossing order.

justiceforcowboys.com

That is what Ryan told us very early on in regard to this case.

Once we won the criminal case, he said we really had nothing. If we won the civil case, he told us at that point, its legal on Wyoming "Checkerboard" lands. If its appealed and we win at the 10th, at that point its legal in all the states covered by the 10th.

IMO, I believe we are extremely lucky to have found Ryan and he's been worth every single penny he's made on this case. Definitely the right man for the job, again in my opinion.

He is right too, that the naysayers have been many, broad and diverse in this whole case from day 1. We had a WYBHA board member resign when we took the case because of fear of reprisal from and losing credibility with our legislature? My thoughts were, who cares? Further, if the legislature is going to somehow seek reprisal for standing up for the public (their own constituents too), then they aren't much of a politician and frankly should be voted out.

It's also sad, many with political aspirations, trying to ride to their dreamed of positions, on the backs of Sportsmen they like to say they care about, are actually working against us behind the scenes. I didn't want to believe that type of stuff went on. I've had my eyes opened that the "we're all in this together as Sportsmen" is really is not the case. I think moving forward, trust is going to be a much more rare commodity from me. These kind of cases are very revealing and unfortunately I had it wrong about a lot of people I really wanted to trust. Maybe I was too trusting or just naive. I won't be making that same mistake again.

Its a very funny thing, even within the hunting community (to a much lesser degree) there are some that are wishing for a loss on appeal, and have been against it from the start. I find it hard to believe that any public land recreationist would be against corner crossing. But, the reality is, there are a fair number that want us to lose. I don't understand it, but, is what it is I suppose.

What a rollercoaster.

 

[TexanSam]

It's also sad, many with political aspirations, trying to ride to their dreamed of positions, on the backs of Sportsmen they like to say they care about, are actually working against us behind the scenes. I didn't want to believe that type of stuff went on. I've had my eyes opened that the "we're all in this together as Sportsmen" is really is not the case. I think moving forward, trust is going to be a much more rare commodity from me. These kind of cases are very revealing and unfortunately I had it wrong about a lot of people I really wanted to trust. Maybe I was too trusting or just naive. I won't be making that same mistake again.

I feel like one would be naive to believe that elected officials actually care about the common person. Watch the movie Charlie Wilson's war. The main character says in it something to the sort of "My voters don't care, but elections are won by donors, and my donors care a lot."

 

[Rainylakr]

This case is pretty interesting! I've listened to Randy and his attorney's speak about this case and I still haven't heard if those guys ever shot anything on their hunt? Does anyone know this?

 

[BuzzH]

This case is pretty interesting! I've listened to Randy and his attorney's speak about this case and I still haven't heard if those guys ever shot anything on their hunt? Does anyone know this?

Yes both years, several elk and a couple mule deer.