Corner crossing the 10th ruling

[homers]

Let’s see how the landowners react. Are they going to intimidate, block or claim some didn’t cross exactly at the corner and touched their property?

 

[TheGreek]

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.

I read this opinion in a very different light. When this is the image used by the Court in the first two pages to visually explain corner crossing, Eshelman didn’t stand a chance.

 

[TheGreek]

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

That’s the Bergen case cited to heavily in this opinion.

 

[Dave N]

Let’s see how the landowners react. Are they going to intimidate, block or claim some didn’t cross exactly at the corner and touched their property?

Yes.

 

[Sheltowee]

I read this opinion in a very different light. When this is the image used by the Court in the first two pages to visually explain corner crossing, Eshelman didn’t stand a chance.View attachment 364584

Fair, reasonable minds can differ— differing interpretations of case law has made a lot of attorneys a lot of money over the last 250ish years.

Closer to home, wonder if CPW or the CO AG’s office will issue guidance on this ruling to Colorado hunters before season.

 

[Matthew57]

Congrats and thank you to Buzz, WY BHA and all others involved!

 

[RealMuddyboots]

Go Pro on your chest, in your vehicle, on your head as you attempt corner crossing. Most accurate GPS you can find. I can see false corners to trap those who do not have reliable accurate GPS. The games of entrapment will begin. JMO

 

[Gynaroo]

I hunted cows on this unit this last season. The ranch manager was patrolling the roads. He claimed to be hunting but when I walked up to his truck to talk to him he just had a carton of cigarettes and Leica binos. No rifle to be seen. So he was hunting me to make sure I didn’t go where I shouldn’t. He did tell me that I could go across Peterson land (don’t take his free advice). This opens that area a little bit. Lots of other places in the state a lot of open lands.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Man, some very welcome good news! Cheers to BHA and to the thousands of people who chipped in for the fight!

 

[manitou1]

Just think of all the time and money spent by Eshelman to make federal appellate case law that is really bad for his position. Some people can’t leave well enough alone.

I find much gratification that the narcissist lost a load of money and all his friends.

 

[manitou1]

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.

No one has even mentioned: "carte blanche to tramp wherever someone wants on private property"...
Not once in this post did anybody mention walking on private property to access public.

 

[Sheltowee]

No one has even mentioned: "carte blanche to tramp wherever someone wants on private property"...
Not once in this post did anybody mention walking on private property to access public.

My man, chill. I didn’t say that anyone did. I was simply commenting on the limits of the ruling.