Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

Money put to the cause was to get these guys out of this b.s. jam. It's a win in that regard.
Makes me wonder about the inability to follow it up the chain for a stiffer definition of public to public by a foot step not touching private.
In the end - it's a win and a first legal battle that can be referenced down the road. Maybe in armchair banter more-so than court though bet it felt good to hear that swift not guilty verdict.
 
This doesn't make corner crossing completely legal...

Ideally we just compromise and do a 4 way crossing. Landowner can drive from corner to corner on public land where motorized vehicles (tractors etc.) are not currently allowed and vice versa allows access perpendicular to that at the corner.
It is a consideration that landowners could access their checkboard lands using the same concept. They could use a bridge analogous to us stepping over the corner. It would be a disincentive for them to do land swaps to consolidate lands to create big blocks of publicly owned habitat. It could also seriously fragment existing good habitat.

It's also a good bargaining tool. In the Crazy Mountains a landowner was allowed access to his checkerboard-isolated land on the condition that he give an easement across his land for public access to the National Forest.
 
Will be fun to see if corner crossing videos, tik toks, #corcercrossing, etc gets really popular this fall. I have a feeling it's going to get really popular in Wyoming after this. I also expect to see a jump in applications for some of these heavily checkerboarded units folks have avoided due to perceived lack of access.
 
It is a consideration that landowners could access their checkboard lands using the same concept. They could use a bridge analogous to us stepping over the corner.
Landowners already get easy easement access through Fed and State land if they own “landlocked” land surrounded by public.

One-sided.
 
Landowners already get easy easement access through Fed and State land if they own “landlocked” land surrounded by public.

One-sided.
Not necessarily. The example I gave in the Crazy Mountains is an example where they explicitly required reciprocity. I support corner crossing but it does bother me that it could also open up roadless areas to exploitation. Nothing comes for free.
 
Not necessarily. The example I gave in the Crazy Mountains is an example where they explicitly required reciprocity. I support corner crossing but it does bother me that it could also open up roadless areas to exploitation.
Agreed, however with all the attention on the Crazies in the last decade, it is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. That, and most easements to landlocked private were made long ago.

You’re spot on with the roadless comment, I could see this opening a whole new cans of worms.
 
I don’t root for the defense very often but I was on this. Good for them. Unfortunately, it probably doesn’t move the corner crossing issue very much in regards to the legal issues at play, particularly the interplay between criminal trespass statutes and the Unlawful Inclosures Act. It will be interesting to see if the civil suit court opines on that interplay more directly.
 
Anyone have a link to an analysis of the verdict? I did a Google search and could not come up with anything yet (I know it’s breaking news).
 
Anyone have a link to an analysis of the verdict? I did a Google search and could not come up with anything yet (I know it’s breaking news).
Angus tells it how it went down, more to follow…….…..https://wyofile.com/not-guilty-corner-crossers-cleared-of-all-charges/
The Wyoming chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers released the following statement:

“Today, the court made its decision, and Wyoming BHA believes justice has been served. We are happy for these hunters, and we hope we can avoid future scenarios of criminal prosecution of the public for attempting to access their public lands and waters.

“This isn’t a precedent-setting decision, but it is a step forward. We are committed to advancing this conversation, and we hope we can find solutions that result in increased public access while respecting the property rights and concerns of all.”https://gearjunkie.com/outdoor/hunt-fish/wyoming-corner-crossing
 
Faith is restored back in local government. If any excess funds remain from the volunteers money to BHA, I suggest they put it up in the next Carbon County Prosecuting Attorney election and rid their-self of that cancer…………..
 
Thanks, I found the reference.
"Stipe’s potential airspace jury instruction would be based on a Wyoming law that states “[t]he ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath subject to the right of flight.”"
I think this really did stick well with the jury. Each surface owner has equal rights to the air above and since half of that corner is public the public has as much right to that air space as the private land owner. The jury instruction is very specific about several owners and if the ranch owner is the only one allowed there that's a single owner vs several. I enjoyed that being brought up in closing arguments.
 
While a nice win today, I'm already thinking ahead to the civil trial and I'm sure a knee jerk reaction from the Wyoming legislature.

Thank you to all that supported the GoFundMe, I'm impressed by the generosity and the fact that sportsmen can do great things when we put our shoulders to the wheel.
 
Buzz,

Now that this decision has been made is your group ready and set to file to the Federal Court for the Federal Governments legal definition of corner crossing and setting the precedent required? Just asking because if Eshelman drops the civil suit this solved nothing. I would encourage you to get with all public land supporting agencies/groups for the support. Monetary or voice.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,432
Messages
2,021,107
Members
36,174
Latest member
adblack996
Back
Top