Wyoming - corner crossing trespass case

[Dale Moser]

Wyoming - corner crossing trespass case

What about the property rights of the public? What if I erected a 20 high fence in the same manner on the public land so that the private landowner could not cross?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the public has the same right to access of public land that the private landowner has to private land.

Then you’d be illegally placing boundaries on public land, and the private landowner adjacent could walk right around them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trapper76]

Sounds like private property owners just want exclusive access to public ground! Either way that issue needs to be addressed and resolved from a legal standpoint.

[flywise]

Yes it is, and It’s pretty well defined. The jury blew it as far as the law goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What part did they get wrong? Fact is, you dont own the airspace about your land. A pilot can can fly as low as they want as long as they are 500 feet away from structures or areas where they might put someone in danger.
And as some mentioned, there are hunting shows using bush planes and helo's to get into land locked public land.

[Dale Moser]

What part did they get wrong? Fact is, you dont own the airspace about your land. A pilot can can fly as low as they want as long as they are 500 feet away from structures or areas where they might put someone in danger.
And as some mentioned, there are hunting shows using bush planes and helo's to get into land locked public land.

According to that article, you DO own the airspace directly above it, at least as high as a man, where trespassing is concerned. I believe in some drone cases they've decided 300' as the number, but that was likely in a different state. Either way, they hadn't any proof of "intent" in this case anyway, but that will change in other courts moving forward.


All that's gonna come of this is that wealthy landowners who bought these lands specifically for this purpose, are going to use that wealth to fight these "trespassers". Before long the states/counties will get tired of dealing with it, or the landowners will get in the pockets of some senator (which likely won't take long), and they come up with a simpler answer.....and guess who it will favor?

[SabineHunter]

Eminent domain for a travel corridor seems like the logical solution to this delima.

Navigable airspace is owned by the US government. I don't think right above a fence would count. Gray area.

In my opinion, most landowners hate the term 'eminent domain'. Its another way of saying the gov steals your land or rips off the landowner. Only non landowners like ED.
Koon, how would you legally and safely design a ladder to circumvent my fences?

[flywise]

In my opinion, most landowners hate the term 'eminent domain'. Its another way of saying the gov steals your land or rips off the landowner. Only non landowners like ED.
Koon, how would you legally and safely design a ladder to circumvent my fences?

If landowners want to pretend public land only belongs to them then they would have brought ED on themselves. Everyone can get along if everyone decides to get along. I have personally been harassed by a land owner in NM who was paid for an open gate program and then wanted to charge a trespass fee so i could access thousands of acres

[flywise]

According to that article, you DO own the airspace directly above it, at least as high as a man, where trespassing is concerned. I believe in some drone cases they've decided 300' as the number, but that was likely in a different state. Either way, they hadn't any proof of "intent" in this case anyway, but that will change in other courts moving forward.


All that's gonna come of this is that wealthy landowners who bought these lands specifically for this purpose, are going to use that wealth to fight these "trespassers". Before long the states/counties will get tired of dealing with it, or the landowners will get in the pockets of some senator (which likely won't take long), and they come up with a simpler answer.....and guess who it will favor?

I will agree that a wealthy will likely have no trouble getting into the pockets of the politician in order to screw the less wealthy.

[Uncle_Milty]

In my opinion, most landowners hate the term 'eminent domain'. Its another way of saying the gov steals your land or rips off the landowner. Only non landowners like ED.
Koon, how would you legally and safely design a ladder to circumvent my fences?

Realistically......no one is building a 20' tall fence, as far as hunting land access by a ladder, I have hunted at least a half dozen TPWD Type II properties that have access via a ladder that goes over a fence. The ladders were approximately 5 foot tall with a handrail on each side and a platform at the top (roughly 3'x3') that allows you to turn around if needed and descend backwards which you would want to do if packing a load.

I struggle to understand why you are so adamant that the public should not have access to public land. Furthermore, in this particular instance it is literally a checkerboard 4 corner crossing so you can easily cross the section where the properties meet without placing a foot on the private property.

I all about property owner rights and deal with our private property that is completely surrounded by National Forest so I certainly understand wanting to protect what is ours from the public. With that being said, we have no right to prevent others from accessing the public either.

[Dale Moser]

I agree, it's chicken **** of the landowners....but laws are laws, and if I was them I'd be mad too.

[dfkoon]

In my opinion, most landowners hate the term 'eminent domain'. Its another way of saying the gov steals your land or rips off the landowner. Only non landowners like ED.
Koon, how would you legally and safely design a ladder to circumvent my fences?

Generally, I do not like eminent domain either. Of course I'm not restricting hunting on public land either. I am fundamentally against that as well. I wouldn't do a 4' corridor, I'd do 100' corridor. And I think that would resolve the issue with fencing. There would be no corner.

[SabineHunter]

If landowners want to pretend public land only belongs to them then they would have brought ED on themselves. Everyone can get along if everyone decides to get along. I have personally been harassed by a land owner in NM who was paid for an open gate program and then wanted to charge a trespass fee so i could access thousands of acres

Say, I buy land that fits the problem presented in the OP. By building a 20' tall, 10' long fence making a X with a hole in the middle, I am not stopping others from hunting public land, I am keeping trespassers out of my land. It would be my right to do so. The public can also buy my land if they want to, but not steal from me through ED. Do you trust the gov?

[SabineHunter]

Realistically......no one is building a 20' tall fence, as far as hunting land access by a ladder, I have hunted at least a half dozen TPWD Type II properties that have access via a ladder that goes over a fence. The ladders were approximately 5 foot tall with a handrail on each side and a platform at the top (roughly 3'x3') that allows you to turn around if needed and descend backwards which you would want to do if packing a load.

I struggle to understand why you are so adamant that the public should not have access to public land. Furthermore, in this particular instance it is literally a checkerboard 4 corner crossing so you can easily cross the section where the properties meet without placing a foot on the private property.

I all about property owner rights and deal with our private property that is completely surrounded by National Forest so I certainly understand wanting to protect what is ours from the public. With that being said, we have no right to prevent others from accessing the public either.

Wrong. It would be very easy to erect a 20' high, 10' long X and not very expensive. See if you can build a ladder that will go over that.
You are wrong again about me and access to public land. I exclusively hunt public land, Sabine National Forest, and I just got permission to access private land to hunt an unhunted part of it. I didn't whine and cry about not hunting that portion because some mean landowner wouldn't let me. So, I know both sides. How about I walk across your lawn so I can access that part of NF?

[SabineHunter]

Generally, I do not like eminent domain either. Of course I'm not restricting hunting on public land either. I am fundamentally against that as well. I wouldn't do a 4' corridor, I'd do 100' corridor. And I think that would resolve the issue with fencing. There would be no corner.

You would willingly rip off a landowner so you can hunt the other side? Geez......

[El General]

Wrong. It would be very easy to erect a 20' high, 10' long X and not very expensive. See if you can build a ladder that will go over that.
You are wrong again about me and access to public land. I exclusively hunt public land, Sabine National Forest, and I just got permission to access private land to hunt an unhunted part of it. I didn't whine and cry about not hunting that portion because some mean landowner wouldn't let me. So, I know both sides. How about I walk across your lawn so I can access that part of NF?

These gentleman did not step foot on private land, so that comparison isn't apples to apples.

[JoelBRice]

Wealthy land owners don’t want you to hunt THEIR public land. If you can get to the public without stepping foot on there land you should be able to. Simple as that. If it’s trespassing to have your shoulder cross there airspace then the law needs to be fixed specifically for this circumstance. We live in America not Britain. Make public land public.