Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Called that!Not guilty, 2 hours
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.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.
Landowners already get easy easement access through Fed and State land if they own “landlocked” land surrounded by public.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.
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.Landowners already get easy easement access through Fed and State land if they own “landlocked” land surrounded by public.
One-sided.
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.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.
Angus tells it how it went down, more to follow…….…..https://wyofile.com/not-guilty-corner-crossers-cleared-of-all-charges/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).
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.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.”"
So much for that stable of lawyers…That jury clearly didn't know how much money that ranch manager's boss has!!!