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.

 

[Kevin W]

I wonder how this will effect the antelope and deer draws with the opening up of access to checker board state / blm ground in lower point units where access was poor.

 

[Nick87]

I wonder how this will effect the antelope and deer draws with the opening up of more public ground in lower point units that had access issues.

Wondering that as well.

 

[Buffs35]

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

 

[sneakem]

Eshelman's next move will likely be to attempt to land swap taking the prime parcels and leaving the general public with the scraps.... I would bet that a bunch of land owners will look to consolidate the prime acreage and still permit to utilize the public ground for livestock...

A huge win for accessing public grounds though, nice to set a precedent on this issue after decades of kicking it to the curb.

 

[2rocky]

I would love to see an AI model of rearranging the public and private sections into the optimum arrangement in terms of public access, and contiguous adjacence. Basically, how big of a square can you make, and still have a section between public blocks and private blocks both...

 

[Irrelevant]

I would love to see an AI model of rearranging the public and private sections into the optimum arrangement in terms of public access, and contiguous adjacence. Basically, how big of a square can you make, and still have a section between public blocks and private blocks both...

the issue I see with that suggestion is that we would want to apply values to all the sections in question (public and private), that's what the fight would be over. Then, of course, you have to find a willing private party.

 

[seeth07]

Eshelman's next move will likely be to attempt to land swap taking the prime parcels and leaving the general public with the scraps.... I would bet that a bunch of land owners will look to consolidate the prime acreage and still permit to utilize the public ground for livestock...

A huge win for accessing public grounds though, nice to set a precedent on this issue after decades of kicking it to the curb.

See my point right at the beginning. It is going to be extremely hard to get public support behind this. Why would the public want to except losing a piece of the prime timbered mountain habitat in exchange for the prairie/desert land below?

In the past, the deals were already skewed with the public often getting more "acreage" out of the deal to garnish public support. Now its sort of silly to accept the deals unless land traded is of exact equal value.

 

[Sheltowee]

See my point right at the beginning. It is going to be extremely hard to get public support behind this. Why would the public want to except losing a piece of the prime timbered mountain habitat in exchange for the prairie/desert land below?

In the past, the deals were already skewed with the public often getting more "acreage" out of the deal to garnish public support. Now its sort of silly to accept the deals in way unless land traded is of exact equal value.

Not sure how you would do it some of the land being swapped has severed mineral rights, also.