Wyoming Corner Crossing Bill

[appaloosa]

A corner crossing bill has now been filed in the Wyoming Senate. SF180 would basically clarify the legality of crossing from one corner of public land to another.

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2023/SF0180

I am curious what our local public land advocates think of this effort and its potential outcome?
My guess is that it is lucky to even get introduced given the names and political affiliation of the sponsors.

 

[rtraverdavis]

“(d) For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.”

Awesome! This is going to be fun to watch play out. Props to Senator(s) Rothfuss and Gierau and Representative(s) Chestek, Provenza, Sherwood, and Yin

 

[mtmiller]

All the sponsors last names end with the same letter. Nothing to see here.

 

[Elkmagnet]

This is great news but it feels like they are poking a bear.
The results will probably depend on publicity.

 

[ccc23454]

This feels a lot like my NM app, longshot but atleast i am trying

 

[Addicting]

Doesn’t not address Civil, it would seem that it affirms that there is a air space violation that it only waves criminally.

 

[BuzzH]

It's premature, but it is good to see it's on the radar. So much depends on the civil suit that I just don't think now is the best timing.

Like the Colorado bill there needs to be more pre-work done, more involvement with stakeholders, etc

As @antlerradar pointed out on another thread, there are workable solutions to be had.

 

[antlerradar]

As @antlerradar pointed out on another thread, there are workable solutions to be had.

Workable solutions if you don't think you own the yellow squares more than other Americans.

 

[antlerradar]

In full disclosure, I own zero land that would be effected by corner crossing. For me as a hunter it would be a net positive in there are some places I would like to get to using corner crossing and it may reduce some of the pressure on public I do hunt.
On the other hand if I was a landowner next to checker board public I would worry about:
Recreationists using the public as a back door way to trespass on the adjacent private. This happens every year on our property. Best way to address this would be higher penalties.
The newly accessible public turning into just more over hunted public land. This is a management issue not an access issue
Hunters complaints about grazing leases. This is at its root is a management issue. No one ever complained about grazing on the Custer in the 90's when deer were plentiful and if you hunted hard a good one could be found. Lots of complaints now, even though the fires have doubled the amount of forage and the Custer has in the last 30 years reduced AUM's by 30,000. With the drought of recent years AUM's were temporarily cut another 40%. The lack of quality management on the public is a no win situation for the adjacent landowners.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

The way I read it, it says trespassing is ok as long as someone is generally trying to go from one parcel to the adjacent corner. Not cool. Paints a bad picture of what corner crossing advocates think is reasonable IMO.

Make this edit and I'm on board. [Edit: definitely more agreeable with this edit but still think they could do significantly better]
“(d) For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.”

 

[Bowhuntrben]

The way I read it, it says trespassing is ok as long as someone is generally trying to go from one parcel to the adjacent corner. Not cool. Paints a bad picture of what corner crossing advocates think is reasonable IMO.

Make this edit and I'm on board.
“(d) For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.”

I was thinking the same thing. Language can use some cleaning up. I get the intent of what they're saying, but it lends itself (in my eyes) to people being able to go right across a 40 acre parcel of private to get more public because they're traveling from one parcel to another. It doesn't seem to give any sort of real restrictions as to what "touching" means.

 

[Bob-WY]

I THINK they are trying to word is so only if it's a corner and you touch the private going public to public then ok. They, I think, intend it so if you corner criss but you GPS is off by a few feet, you are ok

 

[lenny4077]

Only other thing I would like to see added, besides the few that have been addressed, is that this is for walk-in access only and not motorized vehicles.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I THINK they are trying to word is so only if it's a corner and you touch the private going public to public then ok. They, I think, intend it so if you corner criss but you GPS is off by a few feet, you are ok

I could see that but it’s way too vague and open ended to be agreeable IMO. I’m not in favor of “GPS error” being a legal scapegoat for being on someone else’s property or touching someone else’s stuff anyway.

 

[BuzzH]

Bottom line, the bill needed to be worked by the stakeholders to catch all the potential pitfalls that are already being pointed out...and a host of others.

Probably makes sense to wait until the civil trial plays out as well, that will determine much in regard to next steps...either way that trial goes *(and the impending appeals that are almost a given).

Its nice that the legislature is looking at it, but we need to pump the brakes a bit.

 

[appaloosa]

As I suspected, the bill was never considered for introduction.

 

[BuzzH]

As I suspected, the bill was never considered for introduction.

That's not a bad thing...it needed major work.

 

[appaloosa]

That's not a bad thing...it needed major work.

Totally agree, though part of me was looking forward to seeing some debate on this, just to see where some of our legislators we're leaning.

 

[SAJ-99]

Totally agree, though part of me was looking forward to seeing some debate on this, just to see where some of our legislators we're leaning.

Corner crossing would significantly reduce the value of many properties. This makes simple debate on topic unpalatable to any politician. Many we can find an alternative solution?

 

[Dougfirtree]

Corner crossing would significantly reduce the value of many properties. This makes simple debate on topic unpalatable to any politician. Many we can find an alternative solution?

Which is a great illustration of how politics work in America, as those landowners who will lose value are a tiny minority.