Enlighten me on corner hopping

[James Riley]

Grizzly, that is exactly correct. Pat crank was the AG that determined there was no intent to hunt on private land in a corner crossing situation, therefore no game violation. No intent to break a game law, then there is no legal right to confiscate of otherwise impede a legal hunt on public lands accessed via corner crossing. Also, pat is currently a game and fish commissioner.

I'm in dutch with the wife for my computer time with you guys. I'll catch up mon yana and close with this: The elk is evidence in the criminal trespass case, and in a civil trespass case, and can be confiscated or protected by the court pending trial. Maybe Wyoming F&G are not allowed to enforce the general laws but the cops are. As are plaintiff's in a civil action. I see nothing yet that finds corner hopping is legal. And nothing close to a ruling on the 5th Amendment takings issue. Until that is dealt with, trespassing is trespassing, in any form not specifically excepted.

 

[James Riley]

Grizzly, that is exactly correct. Pat crank was the AG that determined there was no intent to hunt on private land in a corner crossing situation, therefore no game violation. No intent to break a game law, then there is no legal right to confiscate of otherwise impede a legal hunt on public lands accessed via corner crossing. Also, pat is currently a game and fish commissioner.

I'm in dutch with the wife for my computer time with you guys. I'll catch up mon yana and close with this: The elk is evidence in the criminal trespass case, and in a civil trespass case, and can be confiscated or protected by the court pending trial. Maybe Wyoming F&G are not allowed to enforce the general laws but the cops are. As are plaintiff's in a civil action. I see nothing yet that finds corner hopping is legal. And nothing close to a ruling on the 5th Amendment takings issue. Until that is dealt with, trespassing is trespassing, in any form not specifically excepted.

 

[BuzzH]

I disagree. The elk did not trespass. I didn't trespass either. The only way an animal is able to be confiscated by a warden is it the animal was illegally taken against game and fish regulation. You can try to ignore the AG opinion, but the gf realizes and have been properly instructed to not issue a game violation for corner crossing. There is no law that says I can't corner cross, no more than there is a law that says I can. There is good reason why wardens in Montana and wyoming are not issuing citations for it. Also a reason why castor found in favor of a guy that corner crossed in Albany county. I Also know that many, if not all, county attorneys will not prosecute a corner crossing case in wyoming.

There flat isn't an intent to break a game law, and essentially no damages to claim in civil trespass. What damages are there to claim from stepping from one piece of public onto another piece of public? None, and why I will corner cross to hunt public lands in wyoming and montana.

 

[BuzzH]

James, my boots are evidence too...they going to confiscate those for evidence? How about my socks? Hat?

The elk means nothing to the case.

 

[schmalts]

Exactly. Hunting has nothing to do with corner jumping cases. A landowner cannot tell you you can't hunt on public land, he can only tell you you can't do it on his. The hunting portion of corner jumping is irrelevant.

 

[James Riley]

I disagree. The elk did not trespass. I didn't trespass either. The only way an animal is able to be confiscated by a warden is it the animal was illegally taken against game and fish regulation. You can try to ignore the AG opinion, but the gf realizes and have been properly instructed to not issue a game violation for corner crossing. There is no law that says I can't corner cross, no more than there is a law that says I can. There is good reason why wardens in Montana and wyoming are not issuing citations for it. Also a reason why castor found in favor of a guy that corner crossed in Albany county. I Also know that many, if not all, county attorneys will not prosecute a corner crossing case in wyoming.

There flat isn't an intent to break a game law, and essentially no damages to claim in civil trespass. What damages are there to claim from stepping from one piece of public onto another piece of public? None, and why I will corner cross to hunt public lands in wyoming and montana.

You are confused, Buzz. I am not ignoring the AG opinion. In fact, as I stated above, that opinion makes my point. Neither the AG nor the Court said corner hopping is not criminal trespass. Rather, it was explicitly limited to, and found not to be a violation of game and fish law. Apparently corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said." So you see, the issue has not been raised or litigated. Don't confuse game and fish law with regular state statutes.

Here, let me help you understand the distinction: The Court's decision and the AG opinion was specifically limited to elements of the game and fish law regarding intent to hunt on private land. It said nothing about criminal trespass, specifically leaving that issue alone.

Have Wyoming State Troopers and county sheriff's deputies received an AG opinion telling them not to charge criminal trespass for corner crossing? Is there an AG opinion or Court decision to the effect: "Crossing of private property without permission will not be prosecuted where there are essentially no damages. As long as there are no damages, citizens are free to violate private property rights granted by state statute."

Forget the legislature, it's the new Wyoming executive "no harm, no foul" law where damages are determined before hand, in the field.

Maybe Wyoming wardens don't have the authority to enforce criminal trespass laws under state law. But if they don't, the state troopers and county sheriff's deputies do. The elk, like your boots and everything else, would or could be evidence in that case. As such, it can be confiscated and, in a civil case, the destruction can be enjoined.

There is a law that says you can't corner cross: It's the state law against criminal trespass. And any authority that fails to enforce the law is no better than any other authority that fails to enforce the law.

You can justify it all you want but doing something because you know you can get away with it is just as telling as a DA or a cop who lets you get away with it.

 

[James Riley]

Exactly. Hunting has nothing to do with corner jumping cases. A landowner cannot tell you you can't hunt on public land, he can only tell you you can't do it on his. The hunting portion of corner jumping is irrelevant.

A landowner can tell you you can't hunt on his, but he can also tell you you can't cross his. In Buzz's case, you are correct: Hunting is only relevant to the Game and Fish laws and has nothing to do with criminal trespass. The hunting portion of corner jumping is irrelevant to criminal (or civil) trespass. The elk and everything else is evidence.

 

[Jorgy]

the other week I saw a news article on one of the drones that got shot down over someones property. Property owner contends he is in the right because he believed the drone guy was taking pictures of his teenage daughter, and the drone was over his property. Drone owner of course says he wasn't, and he was just taking video of the neighborhood, and property owners don't own the airspace over there property.

So I know that at some elevation you aren't crossing someones property, and I believe it said 1000 foot, but I may be wrong. Anyway, my point here is that at some point these drone guys are going to get a lawsuit pushed up the court ladder and there will be a ruling on where private property airspace is, and it's not going to be good for guys that like to corner hop.

 

[James Riley]

the other week I saw a news article on one of the drones that got shot down over someones property. Property owner contends he is in the right because he believed the drone guy was taking pictures of his teenage daughter, and the drone was over his property. Drone owner of course says he wasn't, and he was just taking video of the neighborhood, and property owners don't own the airspace over there property.

So I know that at some elevation you aren't crossing someones property, and I believe it said 1000 foot, but I may be wrong. Anyway, my point here is that at some point these drone guys are going to get a lawsuit pushed up the court ladder and there will be a ruling on where private property airspace is, and it's not going to be good for guys that like to corner hop.

Here's an interesting article on that. Apparently, before air travel, you owned to infinity. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...metz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html

 

[BuzzH]

James, the AG opinion did not say corner crossing is civil trespass....it said may. Language in law and legal opinions matter. There is no law, that I'm aware of that says stepping on one piece of public land to another piece of public is defined as trespassing.

 

[James Riley]

James, the AG opinion did not say corner crossing is civil trespass....it said may. Language in law and legal opinions matter. There is no law, that I'm aware of that says stepping on one piece of public land to another piece of public is defined as trespassing.

For criminal trespass the property in question could be land, house, apartment, office building, automobile, aircraft, air, whatever. The law doesn't have to specify what property to constitute trespass; just the property of another without permission. Quit focusing on what you step on and start thinking about what you step over and through. In our case, that belongs to another.

You can't argue that the law doesn't say you can't squat on another's roof top, dam, car, etc., thus it's okay. Those are included. So is the air over a private/public corner crossing. In fact, not only does it not have to be specified, it would have to be specifically exempted. It is not.

 

[Frenchy]

I think it is morally dishonest for a politician, who has a duty to work in the best interest of his constituents, to ignore those constituent's right to access public property and instead work to protect that public property for the personal use of a single person; one that often doesn't even live in that district and is therefore not even a constituent of that elected official. To me, that is morally dishonest.



But the landowner must prove you crossed his specific land. If you were to be found on a landlocked piece of public property, which landowner could claim damages? As a hunter, just take the 5th Amendment and refuse to disclose at what point you accessed. There could easily be many potential entry points owned by multiple landowners and no landowner could prove you ever stepped foot on his specific property.

All the adjacent landowners can't all line up and sue together as that clearly meets the threshold of reasonable doubt. The court would likely have have to be convinced of which corner you crossed to identify the harmed individual. And then that individual must prove damages.

That's a pretty high bar to clear.

They just need to wait and watch you walk out.

 

[Southwind]

How did the practice of checker boarding start? What was the purpose or benefit to establishing checker boarded property?

I know none of this answers the question but the topic and the discussion of the future of our public lands should include changes we as hunters and general public would like to see. A platform of sorts that would include the right of access, eliminating checker boarding (ie. land swap to make parcels contiguous)

 

[James Riley]

How did the practice of checker boarding start? What was the purpose or benefit to establishing checker boarded property?

I know none of this answers the question but the topic and the discussion of the future of our public lands should include changes we as hunters and general public would like to see. A platform of sorts that would include the right of access, eliminating checker boarding (ie. land swap to make parcels contiguous)

They way I heard it, during westward expansion the U.S. Government gave checker boards to the Rail Roads in return for connecting the nation. They could log ties off the forests, build company towns, etc. Lots of it mysteriously got consolidated and ended up in private hands of ranches far larger than anything the homestead acts would have conceived. But lots remains in the checker board.

 

[Schaaf]

Checkerboarded areas are a result of the government giving land, (every other section I believe) to the railroads in the westward push.

 

[mplane72]

As someone mentioned earlier most states have laws guaranteeing access to private land owners that are in a land locked situation and in most cases those easements already exist but if they don't they can be forced. The same should be true of the general public's access to public lands and corner crossing would be the least obtrusive way to get that done. Should land owners be compensated for that couple of square feet that would be used? Yes. The cost would be negligible.
I don't see how any legislation such as what Big Fin reverenced could be viewed as anything but pandering to private land owners.
On that thought... Does anyone know of a piece of landlocked public, that was sold to a private party NOT being an adjacent owner where access was then forced? I have no idea how one would find that.

 

[bishoppa]

Can anyone site a case and give a link where someone was found guilty of trespassing in a court of law for corner crossing?

 

[James Riley]

As someone mentioned earlier most states have laws guaranteeing access to private land owners that are in a land locked situation and in most cases those easements already exist but if they don't they can be forced. The same should be true of the general public's access to public lands and corner crossing would be the least obtrusive way to get that done. Should land owners be compensated for that couple of square feet that would be used? Yes. The cost would be negligible.
I don't see how any legislation such as what Big Fin reverenced could be viewed as anything but pandering to private land owners.
On that thought... Does anyone know of a piece of landlocked public, that was sold to a private party NOT being an adjacent owner where access was then forced? I have no idea how one would find that.

I think it has a lot to do with timing. When ownership is taken under a given set of laws (presumed easement at common law or whatever) then the purchaser or homesteader is on notice and can't bitch when rights are exercised under that law. However, if the law is changed after the fact and results in a diminution in value, then a "takings" claim can be made. There are exceptions to nonconforming use (grandfather) etc. that deal with public health. Also, your expectations of value can't be based on pie in the sky speculation and I doubt they can be based on privilege. Although it is common practice in the west to value a ranch based on AUMs which, while privilege, are often treated like a right.

I can see some clown saying "Hey, my land was worth X because I have all this public land to myself and now the forced easement makes it worth less." I don't think the courts would buy that because there is no right to have exclusive use of public land.

 

[grizzly_]

The "Right of Access" pertaining to private property is part of what is known as the Bundle of Rights. It is not an issue of timing or "grandfathering" as to whether an access easement would be granted as the Bundle of Rights always existed. There is no such claim as, "You can't gain an easement across my property to your property because I owned my property before the easement laws went into effect." Access is granted via the Possession, Control, and Quiet Enjoyment sections. One of the Rights referenced is known as Exclusion, which states you can exclude people from your property, but exceptions to that include search warrants and easements (which obviously apply here).

The Bundle of Rights is analogous to the unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. The DofI didn't grant those rights, they already existed from our Creator. The Bundle of Rights to Real Property has been deemed to always have existed and will always exist unless contracted away (such as a lease agreement temporarily transferring the Right of Possession to the lessee or dispositions involving the retaining of mineral rights).

I'm not optimistic somebody could apply the Right of Access to public land, but it would be an interesting argument and would likely depend on the Court in which it was argued. So far, it doesn't sound like anybody has attempted that argument so we don't know. It also sounds like nobody has been successfully prosecuted for corner jumping either. And, in fact, the most on-point case so far ended up in corner jumping being upheld in that specific county in Wyoming. There is a lot of gray area in this and likely neither side wants to risk losing enough to take it to court and find out.

 

[RobG]

Here are a couple articles relevant to what is going on in Wyoming. Note that dates of the articles for context.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_63cab769-4d7b-599d-a293-ff221e356a5e.html

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_0848ffe6-200c-11e1-8b59-001871e3ce6c.html