Why haven’t a ton of ton of hunting groups/orgs?
I agree….
But I mean, I imagine if the likes of onX - or any other bigger org or company - is going to get involved theyre probably going to do so in a manner that doesn’t involve gofundme.
But I’d still like to start seeing some interest in this by somebody other than BHA
seeth07
Well-known member
The problem is they can't be associated with losing this. The risk is huge and no one wants to take the chance
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
What's the risk?
A change in law to specifically state corner crossing as not legal or setting case law through a loss in this case
Also I’d guess some groups don’t want to upset well to do landowner members and outfitters
JM77
Well-known member
Associated with the losing? I think some organizations just don't want anyone mad at them and in turn this causes them to be cautious on hot-button issues.
In my opinion, those organizations who tout "public access" in their motto should be knee deep in this one!
JM77
Well-known member
Changing state law in Wyoming would be a monumental task and this case at the present level will not constitute a legal precedent.
To be clear, if these guys win or charges are dropped, there won't be anymore criminal trespass corner cross cases in Wyoming. And I think they are going to win this.
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
I’m in agreement. It’s bizarre there is so much talk about changing these corner crossing laws from all these hunting shows and podcasts but so far on this it’s radio silence other than BHA. Has anyone reached out to OnX for comment at all?
seeth07
Well-known member
The problem is this: I think deep down most hunters, myself included, don't necessarily think it's legal to walk through an infinite point that represents the a corner of 4 parcels. There are the unpractical reasons (most corners aren't precisely located with a professionally surveyed marker) and then there are the philosophical reasons (it's impossible for a person to walk through that infinite point without partially being in all 4 quads at once). Yes - we all want public land to be public and it really sucks a huge donkey **** that there are 1000s of parcels of public land stuck in this situation. But it is what it is and I just don't ever see anything resulting in it all being addressed with one single law case. Randy has mentioned before that the best course of action is to address the situation with willing buyer and willing seller agreements or easements.
You can count me out of that group.
BuzzH
Well-known member
There are reasons that any group or individual chooses to support or not support something...its all a risk calculation based on your experiences or in some cases just a gut feeling. There's risk in action, and also risk in inaction as well.
So, with that said, here's the calculation and risk assessment we went with in pursuing this case:
1. The landowner(s) still have the very most to lose. In our collective opinion, it seems stupid for a landowner to push a county Sheriff and a County Attorney to pursue this case. As it is now, very few hunters have the stones to cross a corner, for all the reasons that have been posted, air space, criminal trespass, etc. and the pain in the ass it takes to fight the ticket. So, my perspective from the landowner point of view, they're idiots for pushing the corner crossing issue, if they lose the case in court, that will open the flood gates and, IMO, empower more people to cross corners (even though this case WONT set legal precedence, it WOULD send a message all the same).
2. We came to the conclusion that doing nothing was not an option in this case. There is also some more to the story that hopefully comes out later and we're hopeful some other citations are issued.
3. We never intend to come across as being unwilling to work with any cooperative landowners for access and come across as being anti-private property rights. To that end, we made the decision that any funds that may remain after the court case and/or this issue is settled will go to accessyes. That is a funding mechanism that absolutely enhances the willing buyer/willing seller and promotes the collaborative process between landowners and sportsmen. We won't burn any good will toward any landowner who is a cooperator in hunting/fishing access, and will in fact promote it via action and with our pocket books as Sportsmen. Of course that is how we all prefer to work, but we won't be man-handled by any landowners either.
4. We weren't the ones that pushed the issue, it was a County Attorney and a Deputy Sheriff that forced the issue via pressure from a well-heeled non resident landowner. We're not the bad guys here. I don't believe in allowing any landowner, county attorney, etc. to bully their way around.
5. This issue is not going away and hiding under the bed being afraid of the boogey-man isn't going to solve anything. Unfortunately, in todays age, we do battle in the court room.
6. There is no precedent on corner crossing and we feel the 4 hunters will prevail in court.
For all those reasons we just made the decision that we were pushed into a corner with no real option left but to support the Sportsmen who corner crossed. Its a risk worth taking in our opinion...and apparently enough people agree to donate over 15K to assist.
"It's Why........."
What is "why?"
FYI, I've talked to some of the Wyoming guys involved to let them know what I have been up to. They know I hope a long-term favorable outcome happens from their work. They have encouraged me to keep doing what I am doing, a bit of which I'll explain below.
I've stayed out of this discussion because over the last decade I've spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to get opinions on the matter and this year, before this case was even started, I've committed many thousand more in legal fees to a law firm that started doing more research. The findings I was provided in the first legal opinion aren't very favorable to the cause of corner crossing, at least under Montana law and in the context of Montana politics. But, there are still a lot of options to research, some being surprising to me when presented by the firm currently researching my questions.
To those wondering about the idea of air space and who owns that airspace, I'd suggest some research on this legal principle that is held to apply to property law in the US - "the ad coelum doctrine." Reading up on that will answer a lot of questions that we might not necessarily like the answers to.
Better yet, I'd suggest hiring law firms who know property law in their state. Do what I did and hire the firm that settled the Montana Stream Access Law in favor of citizens. They gave me a very helpful interpretation, at least from the standpoint of Montana law.
I've brought this up in other threads here on Hunt Talk. Let's walk through the next steps, at least as it applies in Montana, and likely some other western states.
First let's tackle the criminal trespass aspect. Assume a corner crossing case wins in criminal court. How long do any of us think the current western legislatures will let that law stand before they clarify corner crossing as a criminal act? In Montana, I'd give it the first legislative session and we would have a change. Maybe other states would let it go without worry, but I know Montana wouldn't.
Now let's tackle the civil trespass aspect. Since every attorney I have hired has opined that "the ad coelum doctrine" applies to civil trespass, stepping over at the finite corner does constitute civil trespass when using that doctrine. Civil cases are settled by damages, not fines or penalty. From a damages standpoint, the damage for civil trespass at a marked corner would be zero.
Nobody is going to take you to court for zero damages. Yet, in the past, the Montana legislature introduced a bill to impose minimum damages for civil trespass of $1,500. That bill finally died, but the composition of the legislature today almost guarantees that bill would be reintroduced, likely with a much higher minimum damage, somewhere near $5,000 per event. Then the landowner doesn't even need to prove a damage. He gets $5,000 for every corner crossed.
Even if a corner crossing case in Montana is settled in favor of a citizen, the end result is not good once the legislature gets done with things. I'd bet within a few years we have statutory changes to both criminal and civil trespass. Anyone have a few thousand bucks for civil damages for every corner crossed, assuming one could find the monument markers and cross at that finite airspace of intersection?
Maybe that is not how the Wyoming legislature will respond, or the Idaho, or Utah, or (insert western state here). I suspect the Montana legislature will respond against the cause of corner crossing, even if it is a Wyoming case that generates the stir.
And none of that addresses the individual decision we each have to make as to our comfort with civil trespass. Is a civil trespass OK when there is an elk involved? What other property right is one willing to infringe upon and what is the level of incentive to make it OK? I've made that decision for me. I've stated it many times publicly and written it on HT. It is for that reason, until I find legal advice explaining a different analysis of civil trespass, that I won't be involved in a civil trespass by corner crossing. That's just my personal position on property rights and I don't see it changing until it is determined that corner crossing is not civil trespass.
That doesn't mean I am done with the topic, even with these legal opinions I've received to date. I've been involved in enough court cases and do enough property transactions to know how fuzzy legal theory can be. There are a lot of avenues to be explored that use legal principles, including some that would change the findings about what constitutes civil trespass. There are old land grant laws that have some ambiguity about what rights were first granted and what rights were retained by the government. There are laws that applied to property granted under the many Homestead Acts that might change this topic. Lots of stuff that would be far superior to a criminal case precedent, given court case precedent is not very strong in the priority of law and can easily be undone by legislatures. But, these other ideas all require more legal analysis.
The more research I hire to be done, the more I think these landowners and the DA are fools to push this case. They have a lot to lose and not much to gain. In the last fifteen years we have seen huge changes in the way courts are interpreting "the ad coelum doctrine," thanks to fights over subsurface mineral rights, even in some water rights cases. Those are fights between private landowners. In those private landowner fights they are introducing some very good legal concepts that weaken the application of "the ad coelum doctrine" as it has been traditionally applied to airspace, and thus to the way corner crossing is looked at under the law.
Point being, there are plenty of ways to be working on this. I might find out I'm blowing money on more legal opinions that don't get me over the humps of civil trespass and the risks that state legislatures will nullify any progress. But, I'll keep trying until I run out of ideas or run out of legal budget.
Back to the discussion of the Wyoming case. I appreciate these hunters for having their strategy in place before crossing at the corners and for those who are supporting their cause.
Hope that gives you some insight to why I am letting this discussion follow its own course, regardless of what some might want to claim as my concerns or motivations.
Mica Man
Well-known member
So are you going to donate $20 or what...
seeth07
Well-known member
Buzz - I take it you are involved with Wyoming BHA? If so, I do thank you for your efforts here and it's admirable.
I totally agree with you that the private landowner here has the most to lose. This exact spot in particular I know is a hot topic for some of the smartest antelope, deer and elk in the area know this spot isn't pressured like the surrounding parcels that do have some public access. Right now, this landowner has just about full access to am entire mountain and some surrounding foothills while only owning about half of it. Most hunters like myself choose to not corner cross, it's a limited few.
seeth07
Well-known member
You did basically expand on the "why". More simply put, the "why" is because of the fear that criminal trespass can be easily changed in legislator seasons regardless of this outcome and regardless of this outcome, it's still civil trespass (as currently understand and interpreted as you helped just explain).
Your comment did surprise me a bit at the end as you voiced your support. Much respect for doing so.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
I might be hesitant to cross corners, but that has nothing to do with whether I think it should be legal. To me, it's obvious that someone should be able to step over that infinite point if it's marked accurately. My hesitancy comes from a belief that western state legislatures seem to cater to large landowners and ranching interests over those of people recreating on public land. That, and a lack of faith in Onx and other systems to be that accurate. Here in NY, my ONx is generally off by about 50 feet, when checked against surveyed boundaries. I've found it to be more accurate in the west, but still... If we ever get to a point where corner crossing is more accepted legally, I think federal agencies, as well as sportsmans groups should get important corners surveyed and well marked. Actually, maybe they should just be doing that now, anyway...
Good on Wyoming BHA for stepping up here. Sounds like they thought this out well. I'd like to see more state chapters put the word out so that more money can be raised. As Buzz alluded to, I'd also like to see charges brought against this landowner. The chaining of the corner is ridiculous and I suspect that not only losing the case, but being slapped with a citation or two, would make some landowners a little less bold.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
One other point: It rubs me a little wrong that the landowner's perspective in cases like this is often described as "private property rights." It makes it sound like the issue is people protecting their privately owned property from others who seek to use their land.
The truth is that generally, these cases are about a landowner trying to maintain an exclusive FINANCIAL interest in publicly owned land, at the expense of other owners of that public land. I'm sure there are folks just protecting their own hunting opportunities, but more often, I think we see folks protecting a source of income from outfitters, trespass fees, etc.
The truth is that generally, these cases are about a landowner trying to maintain an exclusive FINANCIAL interest in publicly owned land, at the expense of other owners of that public land. I'm sure there are folks just protecting their own hunting opportunities, but more often, I think we see folks protecting a source of income from outfitters, trespass fees, etc.
BrentD
Well-known member
So clearly and concisely stated. This is the crux of the argument, in my opinion, and you have nailed it. And it's more than just financial interest, it the landowner trying to corner ALL interest in public land.
As much as anything it is an "I got it, so you can't have it" mentality.
Last edited:
JM77
Well-known member
A couple of points here should be clarified. Nothing is easily changed in the legislature, at least not in Wyoming. You obviously have not been through the process of lawmaking at the legislative level here. I'm not trying to start a fight, but "easily changed" is the incorrect adjective for legislation, unless all sides agree.
As far as civil trespass is concerned, the elements are no different from criminal except there is some malice and/or damages involved to the landowner. We all know quite simply there are no damages to the landowner in a corner cross situation, other than having to share the public land on the other side of the corner with public land hunters. Try putting a price tag on that in court.
I will also have to respectfully disagree with my friend that legislatures, at least Wyoming's in this case, will enact civil trespass penalties. Civil trespass penalties would not allow due process and we all know that is everyone's right. At least I've always thought that to be true!
Last edited:
