Hunting & Fishing Wyoming Corner Crossing Case - Stand Up For Your Public Lands!

[wyliecoyote]

For anyone who hunts or recreates on public land, please throw in your support to help the four hunters from Missouri who are now fighting a civil suit and are in need of legal funds:

www.wyocorner.com

$20 will go a long ways towards helping the future of access and creating more places to hunt. If these guys win, a precedent could be set to where no prosecutor would ever bring ridiculous suits like this against hunters and millions of acres of land would be accessible. If you love hunting western public lands, have ever dreamed about it, or want your kids to be able to enjoy it, this is really important to get behind. For those unfamiliar with the case, the back story is on the go-fund-me link above.

 

[shields shtr]

This one is a tough issue for me. I hunt public and private land, and have had some experiences with trespassing on our place that are almost unbelievable. I can't count how many people I have seen wandering around our place (or I have on trail cam) that are trespassing literally miles away from any public land border. Including one fuckhead from California who managed to trespass on 3 different properties before just blatantly trespassing on ours. All under the guise he was accessing a landlocked public section in the middle of 3 different places. There is no access to it, no "corner crossing" or the like. Just plain trespassing.

I have also used legal means to hike into public land that is tucked in behind some private land that holds alot of game. Back in the day, I used maps to do it, now any person with a phone can get an app that is pretty easy to read a map on. The problem as I see it, is that it creates and avenue for people to fuck up and blur the lines between what is accessible and what isn't. I hate planning on the idiots in the world, but I can guarantee this will create issues with neighboring private landowners and only further the divide. The guys from Missouri did it right with regards to how they retrieved their game and how they hunted. A few ass hats I have seen, not so much. The temptation is too great for them to cut fences and drive in to retrieve their game. Especially elk. To do this, you must trespass, and you will likely destroy someone's property when doing it.

 

[Baron23]

For anyone who hunts or recreates on public land, please throw in your support to help the four hunters from Missouri who are now fighting a civil suit and are in need of legal funds:

www.wyocorner.com

$20 will go a long ways towards helping the future of access and creating more places to hunt. If these guys win, a precedent could be set to where no prosecutor would ever bring ridiculous suits like this against hunters and millions of acres of land would be accessible. If you love hunting western public lands, have ever dreamed about it, or want your kids to be able to enjoy it, this is really important to get behind. For those unfamiliar with the case, the back story is on the go-fund-me link above.

The land owner is, based on the description of the incident on the referenced website, a total fucking twerp.

WTF....he's suing them for crossing OVER (as in above with a ladder??) a little corner of his land??? What a dick

 

[Long Range 338]

This is a double edged sword. Many hunters in the past have given landowners a sour taste with their complete disregard and as a result landowners may tend to overreact. Also many landowners are recent acquirers of the property and are from other states and have no intention of allowing others to access public lands they believe they have successfully landlocked for their personal use. In both cases is a case of being a poor neighbor and being inconsiderate of others.

 

[wyliecoyote]

I certainly wouldn't categorize this as a double edged sword. Corner crossing is simply the public trying to access what is theirs. These hunters from Missouri never set foot on any private land. If the out of state landowner pressing the civil suit against them wins, these guys will be paying him "damages" for their shoulders passing through his airspace. Absolutely ridiculous.

Imagine what would happen if the American public defended their land ownership rights as vigorously as private land owners do. There are literally 16 million acres of public land in the American West that all of us own, but cannot use. That 16 million acres is land locked behind private fences and the landowners get to enjoy it tax free as if it were theirs. That's a pretty awesome benefit if you're the landowner but kinda screws John Q. Public especially when there are more and more people seeking recreational opportunities on a finite amount of public land. Being able to cross corners would open up good portions of that 16 million acres and allow for less crowding in other areas.

The bottom line is simply this . . . America only has so many square miles/acres of public land . . . we should all be able to access and enjoy every square inch of it, no matter where it is. Things like corner crossing and new easements can go a long ways towards making that happen. It's not like the population of the country is decreasing. More and more people will want to recreate on a fraction of the landscape that isn't getting any bigger.

 

[Long Range 338]

I certainly wouldn't categorize this as a double edged sword. Corner crossing is simply the public trying to access what is theirs. These hunters from Missouri never set foot on any private land. If the out of state landowner pressing the civil suit against them wins, these guys will be paying him "damages" for their shoulders passing through his airspace. Absolutely ridiculous.

Imagine what would happen if the American public defended their land ownership rights as vigorously as private land owners do. There are literally 16 million acres of public land in the American West that all of us own, but cannot use. That 16 million acres is land locked behind private fences and the landowners get to enjoy it tax free as if it were theirs. That's a pretty awesome benefit if you're the landowner but kinda screws John Q. Public especially when there are more and more people seeking recreational opportunities on a finite amount of public land. Being able to cross corners would open up good portions of that 16 million acres and allow for less crowding in other areas.

The bottom line is simply this . . . America only has so many square miles/acres of public land . . . we should all be able to access and enjoy every square inch of it, no matter where it is. Things like corner crossing and new easements can go a long ways towards making that happen. It's not like the population of the country is decreasing. More and more people will want to recreate on a fraction of the landscape that isn't getting any bigger.

On the one hand - and in this particular instance - we agree completely. The other side of that coin are the jackasses that trespass, litter, and otherwise act like inconsiderate a$$holes that make it worse for everybody else. That is what I am calling the double edged sword, not this particular case you are referencing.

 

[wyliecoyote]

Yep, responsible use of both public and private lands requires a certain land ethic among the users (leave no trace, closing gates behind you, etc.). This country's lands truly are a national treasure and must be treated as such. Almost no where else in the world has the opportunities to enjoy the outdoors like we do. Unfortunately, when our population hits 1 billion like India and China, it'll be tougher to find such escapes.

 

[Aftermath]

Is a helicopter or airplane also "trespassing"? Am I able to claim/establish a no-fly zone above my property?

 

[wyliecoyote]

Is a helicopter or airplane also "trespassing"? Am I able to claim/establish a no-fly zone above my property?

Generally speaking, not if they're flying above 500 feet. How far above the ground a property owner's rights extend depends largely on where you're located. In some places, it's as low as 80 feet or so. The issue at stake here in the civil suit against the hunters is whether or not their crossing a corner (without setting foot on private land) caused "damages" to the landowner whose airspace their shoulders passed through. I would think the millionaire plaintiff (landowner) in this case is going to have a really hard time proving that there were any damages to his property from the corner crossing. Even as silly as that is, it's still costing the hunters about $25,000 apiece to defend themselves from the lawsuit. That's why chipping in on the Go-Fund-Me above could result in a big win for public land access. They've already been found "not guilty" in the criminal trespass case.

 

[jakelly]

Montana has the same preposterous law. Checkerboards are legalized plunder and born in theft.

Bad character affects people on both sides. I’ve seen ranch hands / guides blow horns and throw firecrackers to move game animals off of public lands before first shooting light, harass hunters on public land, ruin stalks, and steal kills. Dumb stuff.

 

[wyliecoyote]

I think in Montana, the Game & Fish recommends not corner crossing but you won’t get prosecuted for doing it. Some day, this really does need to be decided once and for good at the federal level since most of the land locked stuff and checkerboards are BLM or NFS. If there was a federal ruling, then the states could follow it with all the trust land they have land locked away too. I think if this were to get to that level, sanity would prevail and it’d be a big win for outdoors lovers and the American public.

 

[Alpine 338]

We have too many damn people in the World, and most are stupid. My property borders public land, and I have people walk right past my No Trespassing signs. Very few people respect Private Property. I shake my head every time I see these idiots set up camp right next to my gate, just off a dusty and noisy road, when they could just drive another mile down the road and have a much nicer campsite.

I also get pissed off at those land owners who lock, and close off legal easements through their property that access public land. As stated above, the stupid people who leave gates open, litter, and damage the land cause problems, but you still can't block access.

 

[Lightning8]

I think in Montana, the Game & Fish recommends not corner crossing but you won’t get prosecuted for doing it. Some day, this really does need to be decided once and for good at the federal level since most of the land locked stuff and checkerboards are BLM or NFS. If there was a federal ruling, then the states could follow it with all the trust land they have land locked away too. I think if this were to get to that level, sanity would prevail and it’d be a big win for outdoors lovers and the American public.

Not a fan of more Federal overreach on private property rights - seems like state and local issue not Federal

 

[wyliecoyote]

Not a fan of more Federal overreach on private property rights - seems like state and local issue not Federal

Not really a private property rights issue . . . this is simply a question of do we have the right to access and use what is ours. This will only get solved once and for good if the Fed weighs in. Right now it’s being treated as a local issue which it really isn’t. Most of the land tied up in checkerboards and land locked is Federal.

 

[Maxduty]

The airspace thing just doesn't even make sense. Someone can fly a drone over your property and if you interfere, you'll be hearing from authorities. So if a drone can do it, a person can as well. Unless they are willilng to let this be the precedent for shooting drones down over your place without repercussions.

 

[wyliecoyote]

The airspace thing just doesn't even make sense. Someone can fly a drone over your property and if you interfere, you'll be hearing from authorities. So if a drone can do it, a person can as well. Unless they are willilng to let this be the precedent for shooting drones down over your place without repercussions.

Lots of states do have privacy laws related to drone overflight which are much needed. Having a drone spying on you can be quite intrusive. The "airspace violation" and the "damages" the land owner in this case is trying to prove would be like going after someone who stood outside your fence line and waved their arm over your land. That's the extent of intrusion these hunters made into the airspace over this guy's land.

 

[Maxduty]

Lots of states do have privacy laws related to drone overflight which are much needed. Having a drone spying on you can be quite intrusive. The "airspace violation" and the "damages" the land owner in this case is trying to prove would be like going after someone who stood outside your fence line and waved their arm over your land. That's the extent of intrusion these hunters made into the airspace over this guy's land.

Privacy laws differ from just flying over. I'm serious. Shoot a drone down and see what happens. Given the precedent set by this I can't even believe this has gone to court.

 

[wyliecoyote]

Ranch Owner Claims Over $7 Million in Damages in Corner Crossing Case

The owner of Elk Mountain Ranch in Wyoming is claiming over $7 million in damages after four Missouri hunters corner-crossed into the airspace of his property last year. In disclosure documents obtained by WyoFile, an attorney for Iron Bar Holdings LLC, the official owner of the ranch, alleges...

www.themeateater.com

What's most ironic about the $7 million devaluation claim is that having public land on a ranch actually increases the value of the property. Its like getting free land from the government that no one else but the owner can enjoy, so long as corner-crossing remains a no-no. 8.3 million acres (the state of Massachesetts and then some) of the public's land is locked away for the sole benefit of landowners by not being allowed to cross corners. I'd say its about time for that to change.

 

[220wyo]

As with most things, to me this is an issue of perspective. Some people here who live on a postage stamp feel access to their public owned land should be unabridged. Others who own tracts of land, some of which live from that land, have a different perspective. I am one of the second group. I pay federal and state taxes as does everyone else. I also lease public landlocked ground that I pay for above taxes. I also pay to improve that land willingly. I also understand that does not entitle me to “possession” of that land. However, when my tanks get shot up, my fences cut, my livestock abused, property littered, roads not followed, told I have to grant access across my deeded property because a gps map shows public ground behind my fences, and the same old sense of entitlement and disrespect, I struggle to be understanding. I grant access through our place every year to the public land we surround. Often though, it’s not to the same people from the year before because of their actions. It’s not all black and white. I understand I am part of the minority on this subject.
Kyle

 

[Maxduty]

As with most things, to me this is an issue of perspective. Some people here who live on a postage stamp feel access to their public owned land should be unabridged. Others who own tracts of land, some of which live from that land, have a different perspective. I am one of the second group. I pay federal and state taxes as does everyone else. I also lease public landlocked ground that I pay for above taxes. I also pay to improve that land willingly. I also understand that does not entitle me to “possession” of that land. However, when my tanks get shot up, my fences cut, my livestock abused, property littered, roads not followed, told I have to grant access across my deeded property because a gps map shows public ground behind my fences, and the same old sense of entitlement and disrespect, I struggle to be understanding. I grant access through our place every year to the public land we surround. Often though, it’s not to the same people from the year before because of their actions. It’s not all black and white. I understand I am part of the minority on this subject.
Kyle

Your issue is that you don't understand you don't own it. It's public. In other words, not yours. It belongs to taxpayers who should be able to access every square inch of it any time they want. See, you think of it as your land is around it so you should get exclusive use. I see it as your the one who bought into a federal HOA and now don't want to play by the rules. If you truly have property damage, document it and turn it in. But what you're espousing here is akin to demanding that you own the grocery store parking lot because you own the other stores in the shopping center. Honestly, I hope the federal government finds for land owners then charges every one of you with trespassing when you access the public portion.

 

[220wyo]

I understand your perspective. I am not saying that I own the public land nor do manage it on my own, nor do I manage it to deny public use. I do own the deeded land surrounding the public land and I do manage that land on my own. I do require permission to cross my deeded land and yes, I will deny permission to those that cause issues on my deeded land. I would gladly land swap the feds and state to end the headaches. I know several landowners that would do the same. Once again, I fully understand that I hold the minority opinion.
Kyle

 

[shields shtr]

It’s not all black and white.

It certainly isn't. I am despising the divide now that is growing between "public land hunters" and "private land hunters". I grew up, and continue to utilize both. Back when I was a kid, I used to literally go knock on doors and ask farmers and ranchers if I could hunt their property. I would always offer to help out if I could to "earn" my way. To this day, one of the main ranches I hunt is a friend of mines that I would help brand at, preg test, fix fence, etc.

I also used to hunt the public forest service around the town I live in now. "Back in the day" this was some of the finest (especially archery elk) hunting to be found anywhere in the lower 48. Almost astounding really. Those days are long gone. I think it is more of a people issue, especially out west. More people hunting on a piece of property whether public or private, does not equal a quality hunting experience if your goal is to actually see wildlife. This is just a fact. I would argue in many places in MT, that private land is probably keeping many elk herds alive. They have little pressure, constant food sources, and in some cases can live on a place with everything they need for their entire lifespan. Of course people drive by, can't get access, see there is a chunk of state or blm ground behind it, and then get creative. There is literally an entire movement of hunting groups who have made millions using these tactics. OnX, Meateater, Fresh Tracks, that crowd. Ironically, this just brings more people into the mix and I would argue doesn't really improve the experience.

For me, part of a solid hunting experience is having the feeling or sense you are out there alone. Nothing ruins the experience for me faster than seeing other hunters on a ridge, listening to hoochie mama toy cow calls, or watching some asshat chase down a herd of whatever in a four wheeler. Sadly, this is where we are headed, and unless something changes I don't think the future is real bright on either side of the coin.

 

[Maxduty]

It certainly isn't. I am despising the divide now that is growing between "public land hunters" and "private land hunters". I grew up, and continue to utilize both. Back when I was a kid, I used to literally go knock on doors and ask farmers and ranchers if I could hunt their property. I would always offer to help out if I could to "earn" my way. To this day, one of the main ranches I hunt is a friend of mines that I would help brand at, preg test, fix fence, etc.

I also used to hunt the public forest service around the town I live in now. "Back in the day" this was some of the finest (especially archery elk) hunting to be found anywhere in the lower 48. Almost astounding really. Those days are long gone. I think it is more of a people issue, especially out west. More people hunting on a piece of property whether public or private, does not equal a quality hunting experience if your goal is to actually see wildlife. This is just a fact. I would argue in many places in MT, that private land is probably keeping many elk herds alive. They have little pressure, constant food sources, and in some cases can live on a place with everything they need for their entire lifespan. Of course people drive by, can't get access, see there is a chunk of state or blm ground behind it, and then get creative. There is literally an entire movement of hunting groups who have made millions using these tactics. OnX, Meateater, Fresh Tracks, that crowd. Ironically, this just brings more people into the mix and I would argue doesn't really improve the experience.

For me, part of a solid hunting experience is having the feeling or sense you are out there alone. Nothing ruins the experience for me faster than seeing other hunters on a ridge, listening to hoochie mama toy cow calls, or watching some asshat chase down a herd of whatever in a four wheeler. Sadly, this is where we are headed, and unless something changes I don't think the future is real bright on either side of the coin.

I feel you on this. But I've had just the opposite feelings about it too. I hunt public land exclusively. I was neither born with a silveer spoon in my mouth, nor did I make financial choices early in life to allow me to have the money demanded by private land owners. Hell, I would have to save for years to afford a canned hunt. So I make the best of it with what I have to work with. Over the years, I've learned to use those other hunters to elevate my hunting experience. I've never left empty handed and usually tag out pretty quick.

 

[Maxduty]

I understand your perspective. I am not saying that I own the public land nor do manage it on my own, nor do I manage it to deny public use. I do own the deeded land surrounding the public land and I do manage that land on my own. I do require permission to cross my deeded land and yes, I will deny permission to those that cause issues on my deeded land. I would gladly land swap the feds and state to end the headaches. I know several landowners that would do the same. Once again, I fully understand that I hold the minority opinion.
Kyle

I thought there was a program once that you could land swap them? I vaguely remember something about it back in the eighties when I was looking at land out west. FWIW, I hold no animosity towards land owners who actually allow crossing, whether permission is needed or not. It's the ones who had no intention of letting anyone access that land. And an absent land owner who does that is even worse in my eyes. Their true personality is showing there. The land owner in the original article is the worst type.

 

[wyliecoyote]

It certainly isn't. I am despising the divide now that is growing between "public land hunters" and "private land hunters". I grew up, and continue to utilize both. Back when I was a kid, I used to literally go knock on doors and ask farmers and ranchers if I could hunt their property. I would always offer to help out if I could to "earn" my way. To this day, one of the main ranches I hunt is a friend of mines that I would help brand at, preg test, fix fence, etc.

I also used to hunt the public forest service around the town I live in now. "Back in the day" this was some of the finest (especially archery elk) hunting to be found anywhere in the lower 48. Almost astounding really. Those days are long gone. I think it is more of a people issue, especially out west. More people hunting on a piece of property whether public or private, does not equal a quality hunting experience if your goal is to actually see wildlife. This is just a fact. I would argue in many places in MT, that private land is probably keeping many elk herds alive. They have little pressure, constant food sources, and in some cases can live on a place with everything they need for their entire lifespan. Of course people drive by, can't get access, see there is a chunk of state or blm ground behind it, and then get creative. There is literally an entire movement of hunting groups who have made millions using these tactics. OnX, Meateater, Fresh Tracks, that crowd. Ironically, this just brings more people into the mix and I would argue doesn't really improve the experience.

For me, part of a solid hunting experience is having the feeling or sense you are out there alone. Nothing ruins the experience for me faster than seeing other hunters on a ridge, listening to hoochie mama toy cow calls, or watching some asshat chase down a herd of whatever in a four wheeler. Sadly, this is where we are headed, and unless something changes I don't think the future is real bright on either side of the coin.

@shields shtr is spot on here . . . this is a people issue . . . as in too many people. With the world's and America's populations continuing to sky rocket, more and more people will be competing for those few places that remain to recreate in. Private land owners, especially like @220wyo, are key to saving such places from being developed and keeping wildlife habitat in tact. The 30 by 30 conservation goal, while a good thought, isn't even remotely possible without private landowners. That and asking the question no one wants to talk about . . . how many people is too many?

150 or so years ago, land policies and incentives created this land-locked/checkerboard conundrum and it'll probably only be solved by some combination of easement/corner-crossing comprimises. One for one land swaps might be a good idea too with plenty of enticement for the land owners. Regardless, opening up access to more public acres is good all around. Just think of how crowded the National Parks and trail heads are in places like Colorado. Adding 16 million (land locked) or 8 million (checkerboard) acres would go a long ways. Our public lands truly are a national treasure and set us apart from most of the world. American exceptionalism at its best.