Corner crossing the 10th ruling

[blb078]

I don't think the Supreme Court would take it since it was unanimously supported by the 10th Circuit.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether they take a case or not. Really there are three common ways to get a case in front of SCOTUS. 1. You're the federal gov(neither party in this case is), 2. It's a direct constitutional issue(this isn't a constitutional issue at least the way it's currently argued it doesn't appear to be) 3. There is differences in rulings on similar cases in different courts of appeals so say if a similar case was brought in the 8th or 9th after going through its process or something by different parties and they ruled the opposite way then SCOTUS would take it up cause you have conflicting opinion at the appeals level.
Now they could do an enbanc appeal to entire 10th circuit. But this guy has lost at every step and the 10th has no obligation to hear it enbanc so that and SCOTUS isn't a guaranteed thing. Either way if he keeps pursuing it he's looking at probably 2 years before there is even a verdict in any of it and the verdict may be what he wants so for now it's the law in 6 states.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

This is awesome. Friggin nice to see the big money interests loose for once and the little guy win. Thanks to anyone who worked on this

 

[Montana_Wanderer]

Might be my favorite part.

Do we address our thank you letters directly to Eshelman or his holding company Iron Bar?!?!

Today is a great day!

 

[Bigjay73]

Wonder how technical LEOs will get with this. Are we really going to need to drag a ladder everywhere we go, or will crossing at a true corner be sufficient?

 

[blb078]

Wonder how technical LEOs will get with this. Are we really going to need to drag a ladder everywhere we go, or will crossing at a true corner be sufficient?

I haven't read the entire ruling but it did say as long as you do not touch private property so the answer would be no, if you want and you have the map you can jump over. However there are some things a landowner could do to make it very difficult to jump between two corners while still doing it on their property and not touching the corners.

Also it's nice to see WY stock growers assoc take a L here it seems like Magana is always involved in something to hurt diy hunters and profit land owners.

 

[Southern Elk]

Thank you BHA and all involved!

 

[npaden]

Wonder how technical LEOs will get with this. Are we really going to need to drag a ladder everywhere we go, or will crossing at a true corner be sufficient?

Reading through the judgment that was linked above they pretty much said it was okay in 2020 when the hunters said that they grabbed the T Posts and swung around to stay off the ground since the T Posts were interfering with their ability to jump over at the true corner.

I think it is going to be more of a good faith type thing, especially if landowners put up obstacles to impede just jumping over at the corner.

 

[In2Hntn]

Best news I have read today! Great work by all who have been involved in making this happen.

 

[BuzzH]

Reading through the judgment that was linked above they pretty much said it was okay in 2020 when the hunters said that they grabbed the T Posts and swung around to stay off the ground since the T Posts were interfering with their ability to jump over at the true corner.

I think it is going to be more of a good faith type thing, especially if landowners put up obstacles to impede just jumping over at the corner.

If they put up obstacles then let the agencies know and fine the shit out of them. They're breaking the law.

 

[elkduds]

Enjoy it while you can. Those checkerboard lands might not be public for long with this president. Nonetheless, a great win for the bold hunters, WY BHA and everyone else who jumped in the fight.

 

[blb078]

If they put up obstacles then let the agencies know and fine the shit out of them. They're breaking the law.

For that to happen an agency would have to have a statute on the books based on this opinion with a fine amount. To my knowledge none do and a legal opinion which this was is more common law so breaking it won't do anything until the states enact laws based on the opinion, unless of course you want file a suit against the landowner that they broke common law precedent and get a judgment. Basically now if a rancher blocks access you can call the authorities and they can remove the block or tell you to do it yourself. Or you could do it yourself without calling anyone and see how the landowner reacts which I'm sure will create a whole bs set of other issues that this opinion doesn't address but may be addressed already in other laws and opinions.

This is kind of how these things work. It's solves one issue but leaves a bunch of "what ifs" on other issues that aren't usually addressed in the opinion. And don't get addressed until that road is crossed.

Still a win is a win and any corner crossing I come up on i fully intend to cross.

 

[Bigjay73]

Enjoy it while you can. Those checkerboard lands might not be public for long with this president. Nonetheless, a great win for the bold hunters, WY BHA and everyone else who jumped in the fight.
View attachment 364573

Sure, right after he finishes clear cutting 280 million acres of national forest

 

[Sheltowee]

It is an oddly written ruling and, for about 80% of it, you think they're going to rule in favor of Iron Bar. The Court puts all of its eggs into the Unlawful Inclosures Act and dances around what I think was the Hunters biggest vulnerability- the Takings Clause.

I'm pleased the 10th Circuit ruled the way it did damned if it didn't take some legal gymnastics to get there. Either way, I wouldn't take this ruling as carte blanche to tramp wherever someone wants on private property in order to access a landlocked Federal parcel. Also, keep in mind that this *does not* seem to extend to landlocked state-owned parcels as they were not addressed by the UIA.

 

[seeth07]

Regarding the obstruction topic, there are numerous corners that already have this in the form of a fence post directly at the corner. We may see some more creative ways to still have a fence post but make it harder to get around but as pointed out above, it seems like if there is an obstruction, you aren't breaking the law to walk around it to achieve access. For water access, a lot of states have this specifically in their regulations and perhaps this will end up there as well.

 

[BuzzH]

For that to happen an agency would have to have a statute on the books based on this opinion with a fine amount. To my knowledge none do and a legal opinion which this was is more common law so breaking it won't do anything until the states enact laws based on the opinion, unless of course you want file a suit against the landowner that they broke common law precedent and get a judgment. Basically now if a rancher blocks access you can call the authorities and they can remove the block or tell you to do it yourself. Or you could do it yourself without calling anyone and see how the landowner reacts which I'm sure will create a whole bs set of other issues that this opinion doesn't address but may be addressed already in other laws and opinions.

This is kind of how these things work. It's solves one issue but leaves a bunch of "what ifs" on other issues that aren't usually addressed in the opinion. And don't get addressed until that road is crossed.

Still a win is a win and any corner crossing I come up on i fully intend to cross.

Pretty sure the UIA has been enforced in other case law, in particular a landowner having to remove fences that were impeding pronghorn migrations.

 

[ccc23454]

If they put up obstacles then let the agencies know and fine the shit out of them. They're breaking the law.

Still waiting on the iron bar charges for operating motor vehicle off road on public land, hunter harassment and obstruction of the corner. There will be no enforcement like most things public land but now that its been court tested that will work on both sides. I suspect landowners don't make it as big of issue now that the battle has been fought and lost. Good win for hunters (thanks to organizations and the people who helped in this victory) now hopefully issue becomes acceptable practice in all states.

 

[blb078]

Pretty sure the UIA has been enforced in other case law, in particular a landowner having to remove fences that were impeding pronghorn migrations.

Oh it has, but you stated to call the agencies to fine them. Well what agency has a fine on the books for this. Right now it's law[common law] but it's a law without any repercussions currently. It's up to the states and their agencies or congress to make the statutes and fines.

 

[timberman56]

What is really great about this is think about how land swap deals will look now. I would think they will now have to become much more favorable on the public land side because there is now a significantly less incentive on the public side to accept these types of proposals.

absolutely

 

[NR_Hunter]

Hey Eshelman

 

[elkduds]

Sure, right after he finishes clear cutting 280 million acres of national forest

Betting Eshelman already gave his credit card # to Dept. of Ag for his adjacent public
sections.