Caribou Gear Tarp

Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

Southern Elk said:
I don’t think the title company would guarantee anything outside of the boundaries of private property.
Click to expand...
I’d have to assume the same thing, but that could be a strong argument against his loss of valuation based on the corner crossing. How do you assign a value or argue a loss in valuation to a right you never had? My guess is that public inholdings on these types of ranches have been valued in purchase price as if the buyer was receiving fee simple but not being insured as such in the title policy.
 
appaloosa said:
The fact that Magagna and the stock growers have now signed on absolutely infuriates me. They are the biggest bunch of hypocritical whiners in Wyoming. They have no trouble trespassing livestock all over the state and causing untold damages to public lands. What is that worth?
Hell, in Wyoming, cattle can wander freely wherever they want with no recourse to the owner. It is YOUR responsibility to fence them off your property. Fundamental property rights be damned.
I am now more motivated than ever to fund this legal defense.
Click to expand...
Magagna cashed one of the first, if not the first, check for a domestic sheep allotment buyout in Wyoming. More recently, he has been working to get the FS to reopen some other sheep allotments that were closed through the same such conservation buyouts.
 
BuzzH said:
Latest on corner crossing.

wyofile.com

U.S. attorney: Corner-crossing prosecution didn’t violate hunters’ rights - WyoFile

Wyoming’s top federal prosecutor believes that Carbon County justice officials did not violate federal law when they charged Missouri men with criminal trespass at Elk Mountain Ranch.
wyofile.com wyofile.com
Click to expand...
Does this just mean that the US attorney won't prosecute the ranch for violating the Unlawful Inclosures Act? It's not clear from the article how/if this decision may affect the civil case next summer.
 
Cornell Cowboy said:
Does this just mean that the US attorney won't prosecute the ranch for violating the Unlawful Inclosures Act? It's not clear from the article how/if this decision may affect the civil case next summer.
Click to expand...
Won't impact the civil case. What I'm reading is the US attorney is waiting for the civil case before doing anything.

The other thing is that his complaint brought action to illegally posted public access.
 
Last edited:
Bob-WY said:
Decrease property value is a real problem, but can't blame the hunters. If a judge de ides corner crossing is legal, that's not the fault of hunters
Click to expand...

It's a real problem in the sense that they made a bad investment, assuming they had the only access to swaths of public land appears to have been a miscalculation. Miscalculations happen in capitalism. Oopsie Doopsie.
 
Can anyone answer the question of whether the civil case is presenting a tax liability issue? If the value of the land decreased by that much aren't the liable for lack of proper tax valuation? I am sure they didn't inform the county that their land was worth that much.
 
Ag land is taxed at a low rate independent of valuation.
Wyoming is a fractional assessment state. This means that the taxable value is based on a portion of the full value. In Wyoming, this fractional amount is 9.5 percent for agricultural property. To arrive at the assessed value, multiply the total land value per acre times 9.5 percent. The assessed value is then multiplied by the appropriate tax district mill levy to obtain the tax.
 
Last edited:
Dakotakid said:
Ag land is taxed at a low rate independent of valuation.
Wyoming is a fractional assessment state. This means that the taxable value is based on a portion of the full value. In Wyoming, this fractional amount is 9.5 percent for agricultural property. To arrive at the assessed value, multiply the total land value per acre times 9.5 percent. The assessed value is then multiplied by the appropriate tax district mill levy to obtain the tax.
Click to expand...
The county still has the value of the land a lot lower than what the piece of crap is claiming his property is worth.
 
What's interesting to me about the alleged damages ($3-7MM for diminution in value because of the trespass) is that there's a pretty solid legal defense to that. Either there was no trespass, in which case, there's no liability; or there was a trespass (airspace), in which case, there's been no diminution in value because it was a recognized as a trespass, ie, other people can't do it. What the Ranch is really arguing is that the value has decreased because other people now know it's legal to access the public land this way--and that's hogwash. If it's legal, then it's ALWAYS been legal, and there's no diminution claim; if it's illegal, then the ranch's rights have not changed, and the property is worth just as much today as it was yesterday because everyone will know they can't do this (and I would argue it's actually worth more if the Ranch wins because prior to this, it was an "open question" whether this was legal).
 
bts09 said:
What's interesting to me about the alleged damages ($3-7MM for diminution in value because of the trespass) is that there's a pretty solid legal defense to that. Either there was no trespass, in which case, there's no liability; or there was a trespass (airspace), in which case, there's been no diminution in value because it was a recognized as a trespass, ie, other people can't do it. What the Ranch is really arguing is that the value has decreased because other people now know it's legal to access the public land this way--and that's hogwash. If it's legal, then it's ALWAYS been legal, and there's no diminution claim; if it's illegal, then the ranch's rights have not changed, and the property is worth just as much today as it was yesterday because everyone will know they can't do this (and I would argue it's actually worth more if the Ranch wins because prior to this, it was an "open question" whether this was legal).
Click to expand...
That is a great point. It seems to me that is why I have heard that other ranches in the area are not happy with this case moving forward. A large ranch in this checkerboard region has nothing to gain from this case right?
 
antlerradar said:
My bet is you are the type of hunter that passes through my place at least 1/2 before and after dark on their way to the public. An honest hunter that is just interested a good hunt. I as a landowner never have to deal with these hunters . I get to deal with the sobs every year. Over the years I have caught dozens of trespassers and found evidence of dozens more. Nealy all the hunters I have caught claim that they thought they were hunting public land. Every one of them was lying. Most honest hunters have no idea of the kind crap landowners put up with during hunting season. Landowners view hunters far differently than hunters view themselves. It is very easy to get a distorted impression of hunters when you mostly have to deal with the dishonest minority and not the honest majority. Don't think for a minute that hunters using public to trespass on adjacent private is not a concern.
Click to expand...
1/2 hour before and after what morons. That's legal shooting light in Montana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Beignet
Montana Free Press Series on Corner Crossing
Replies
8
Views
1K
BourbonSnowCone
B
appaloosa
Wyoming Corner Crossing Bill
2 3
Replies
45
Views
5K
BuzzH
B
rjthehunter
  • Locked
Devaluing Non-Residents
27 28 29
Replies
569
Views
30K
Big Fin
Big Fin
Elky Welky
FWP lies about Corner Crossing
8 9 10
Replies
192
Views
20K
Wind Gypsy
W
B
Corner crossing tampering
Replies
9
Views
2K
elkduds
elkduds
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,023
Messages
2,041,589
Members
36,433
Latest member
x_ring2000

Share this page

Back
Top