Called that!
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Snow on April 29, not moving to WY.
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.
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.
RobG
Well-known member
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.
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
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.
runningmt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 717
Landowners already get easy easement access through Fed and State land if they own “landlocked” land surrounded by public.
One-sided.
RobG
Well-known member
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.
runningmt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2018
- Messages
- 717
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.
TheGreek
Well-known member
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.
Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,739
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
SaskHunter
Well-known member
That jury clearly didn't know how much money that ranch manager's boss has!!! 
lapuahunter
New member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2015
- Messages
- 11
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.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
So much for that stable of lawyers…That jury clearly didn't know how much money that ranch manager's boss has!!!
BuzzH
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
brocksw
Well-known member
Landowners with landlocked public land prepping their new corner posts
