Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Treeshark]

Thank you for providing the update, Buzz!

 

[iawhitetail3]

I was thinking about hunting this very area myself, but didn't have the stones to do so. I don't think my heart could handle the court case, kudos to the guys who are putting up a fight. As a landowner myself I have mixed emotions about it. If it were me personally, I would want to do a land swap to consolidate my land. If these guys get tickets for walking across air, shouldn't the landowner get a fine for putting up the signs/chain that invade the public land air space?

 

[Elkmagnet]

If these guys get tickets for walking across air, shouldn't the landowner get a fine for putting up the signs/chain that invade the public land air space?

I can't figure out how one would be a violation without the other being. In a common sense sort of way. Unfortunately that has little to do with a legality.

 

[mhungerford]

Yes, discovery has taken place all 4 hunters have attorneys and have paid retainers.

Court date sometime in April.

Also found out the case has been turned over to the assistant County Attorney.

We've been having regular meetings with the hunters, press is still very interested in the story, lots of interest over-all. Had a meeting just a couple days ago with a prominent outdoor company that seems interested in some sort of assistance, waiting to hear back. News report on the issue all across WY television. Bunch of podcasts on it.

For now that's all I can share.

Thank you Buzz.

 

[Khunter]

Here is one news report.

 

[mhungerford]

Few things of knowledge I'd like to chime in with because I think a few things have been brought up without really knowing much about them.

First off, survey markers are not placed or verified using GPS as stated here:


I work for an engineering firm that does a lot of land surveying. They locate and place new property markers using old and new school technology that involve lasers, rulers, transits, etc. NOT GPS. In the surveying world, its critical that the placement of a marker be extremely previse and that level of precision does not exist with GPS.

Secondly, neffa3 is correct here at least for sure in the State of Wisconsin. I'm not sure if that is correct elsewhere.

There are numerous cases where properties in this state had fence lines or roads established that didn't occur exactly on a property boundary and there is such a thing as land abandonment and reclamation by the adjoining land owner. I'm sure someone else here more knowledgably on the legal background of this could chime in. Point just being that if a landowner establishes a fence line as a "property boundary", the location of it is close enough to be assumed as the "property boundary".

That level of percision does not exist with GPS? You are kidding right? GPS is used everyday in the survey world. Huge difference in my trimble R-12 head and your handheld.

 

[seeth07]

That level of percision does not exist with GPS? You are kidding right? GPS is used everyday in the survey world. Huge difference in my trimble R-12 head and your handheld.

While used, like your trimble, they aren't used for official markings and surveys. I already explained this. Moving on and focusing on the op...

 

[Bigjay73]

What's worse, a big d!(< contest, or my gps is better than yours contest?

 

[mhungerford]

While used, like your trimble, they aren't used for official markings and surveys. I already explained this. Moving on and focusing on the op...

Ill move on. Funny how just last week I worked with the head BLM surveyor here in Wyoming re monumenting section corners with a GPS. Highest law of the land when it comes to public land. Have a good day.

 

[mhungerford]

What's worse, a big d!(< contest, or my gps is better than yours contest?

oh definitely a my gps contest. you can just whip out your D and prove everyone wrong.

 

[Irrelevant]

Corner-crossing defendants move for dismissal of trespass charges - WyoFile

A closely watched case regarding public land presumably locked up by checkerboard ownership should be dismissed, defendants’ attorney argues.

wyofile.com

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Corner-crossing defendants move for dismissal of trespass charges - WyoFile

A closely watched case regarding public land presumably locked up by checkerboard ownership should be dismissed, defendants’ attorney argues.

wyofile.com

Wow. The argument they are making definitely has potential to set precedent! Love it

Also, would love to get the audio from the body camera referenced on the quote below, that's not gonna help their case much!

"But Grende was dissatisfied and said, after discussions about the law, that if the Wyoming Supreme Court deemed corner crossing legal, the ranch owner would take extra steps to obstruct, prevent or block access to public lands. A body camera worn by a sheriff’s deputy recorded conversations, the motion states."

 

[idahohuntr]

Great article, was good to read some of the legal defense positions. Seems they are setting up to force courts to tackle the issue directly. I bet a lot of landowners who prefer some vagueness on this issue are not real happy with this case being brought by the DA.

 

[BuzzH]

Was just going to post this...good update on where everything is at.

Thank you again to all that donated $$$ and help spread the word.

 

[elkduds]

What many here have long argued:

“[T]his common corner is literally composed of equal parts private property and public property,” the motion reads. “Consequently, the public retains, as both a matter of course and logic, a correspondingly equal right to use and access this common corner.

“Yet, Elk Mountain Ranch and other similarly situated private landowners claim the common corner as their exclusive property alone,” the motion reads. The ranch claim is “an unlawful enclosure or obstruction to free passage through public lands by another name,” the filing states.

“Elk Mountain Ranch and other private landowners may not want the public to access public lands by crossing common corners their property shares with public lands,” the motion says. Landowners “may extract great riches out of their perceived monopoly over public land adjacent to and ‘landlocked’ by their large real estate holdings. They may strongly wish to retain the ability to keep making money from the wealthy elite by granting special access to what is, in reality, a public treasure gifted to all Americans.

“However, in the American legal system personal interest does not and cannot trump the law.”

 

[Savagerun]

Ok. Just read it. I still fail to see how the alleged UIA violation would provide cause for the trespass barges to be moved to federal court. The trespassing is not a federal violation, and the fencing is irrelevant to the defense of such.

Still think it’s not a potential Federal issue. Perhaps those wise old Wyoming/Colorado Professors do know a thing or two about the Law. LMAO.

Federal law trumps​

Dismissal is warranted because federal law “prohibits any person from preventing free passage over or through public lands,” the motion states. “Of course, then, a person must have the freedom to travel from one section of public land to another distinct, but physically adjoining section of public land,” the filing reads.

“[T]he state’s application of trespass law actually conflicts with federal laws,” Semerand wrote. “Accordingly the State’s application of Wyoming’s criminal trespass statute here is preempted by the federal law on point such that this prosecution ought to be dismissed.”

 

[TheJason]

Still think it’s not a potential Federal issue. Perhaps those wise old Wyoming/Colorado Professors do know a thing or two about the Law. LMAO.

Federal law trumps​

Dismissal is warranted because federal law “prohibits any person from preventing free passage over or through public lands,” the motion states. “Of course, then, a person must have the freedom to travel from one section of public land to another distinct, but physically adjoining section of public land,” the filing reads.

“[T]he state’s application of trespass law actually conflicts with federal laws,” Semerand wrote. “Accordingly the State’s application of Wyoming’s criminal trespass statute here is preempted by the federal law on point such that this prosecution ought to be dismissed.”

Welcome back Highfastflyer/pest control. Dismissing state charges because they are in conflict with federal law does not mean the case should be moved to federal court, but I don’t expect you to understand that. It simply means the Wyoming law is not enforceable because of the statutory conflict. Get a $*)Q!#@$ life and quit creating new accounts.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Hey ShortRun, how can you “still think” if this is your first post? FWIW, I hopped 2 Carbon County corners last week and somehow still have both my arms intact.

 

[Schaaf]

What many here have long argued:

“[T]his common corner is literally composed of equal parts private property and public property,” the motion reads. “Consequently, the public retains, as both a matter of course and logic, a correspondingly equal right to use and access this common corner.

“Yet, Elk Mountain Ranch and other similarly situated private landowners claim the common corner as their exclusive property alone,” the motion reads. The ranch claim is “an unlawful enclosure or obstruction to free passage through public lands by another name,” the filing states.

“Elk Mountain Ranch and other private landowners may not want the public to access public lands by crossing common corners their property shares with public lands,” the motion says. Landowners “may extract great riches out of their perceived monopoly over public land adjacent to and ‘landlocked’ by their large real estate holdings. They may strongly wish to retain the ability to keep making money from the wealthy elite by granting special access to what is, in reality, a public treasure gifted to all Americans.

“However, in the American legal system personal interest does not and cannot trump the law.”

Say it louder for the people in the back

 

[grizzly_]

It seems to me the argument is that UIA was written to provide the public with access to federal land and the idea is that the state trespass statute conflicts with federal law by restricting access to public land and is thus an unlawful statute. Is that the professor's position?

Well, that pretty much answered my question from a month ago with a resounding...