Wyoming - corner crossing trespass case

[unclefish]

Interesting case - hunters were found not guilty.

https://wyofile.com/jury-finds-four-...y-of-trespass/

[Traildust]

Originally Posted by unclefish

Interesting case - hunters were found not guilty.

https://wyofile.com/jury-finds-four-...y-of-trespass/

That ruling opened up a bunch of public land it looks like....

[SabineHunter]

Devil's advocate: what if the land owner erected a fence through the center point connecting his two properties?

[wytex]

He had put up fence posts with a chain in between, they are gone now. The public land enclosures act prohibits limiting access to public lands but not sure if it applies here. Some have raised that law and that may be why the chain is gone now.
The hunters used a ladder to cross over the corner.

Civil case is still pending.

[diamond10x]

I would be willing to bet this case doesn’t really do anything as far as corner crossing goes. There will still be cases prosecuting people trying to corner cross. Just my guess.

[F1addict]

Originally Posted by diamond10x

I would be willing to bet this case doesn’t really do anything as far as corner crossing goes. There will still be cases prosecuting people trying to corner cross. Just my guess.

Wouldn't this case, as a precedent, prevent some of that?

[El General]

Originally Posted by F1addict

Wouldn't this case, as a precedent, prevent some of that?

Juries don't set precedent, judges do.

[Drycreek3189]

Originally Posted by diamond10x

I would be willing to bet this case doesn’t really do anything as far as corner crossing goes. There will still be cases prosecuting people trying to corner cross. Just my guess.

I think you’re probably right !

[CEO]

Originally Posted by diamond10x

I would be willing to bet this case doesn’t really do anything as far as corner crossing goes. There will still be cases prosecuting people trying to corner cross. Just my guess.

This is my understanding from following along with the case.

[unclefish]

Originally Posted by diamond10x

I would be willing to bet this case doesn’t really do anything as far as corner crossing goes. There will still be cases prosecuting people trying to corner cross. Just my guess.

Agree. The law is still there and more people will be prosecuted. This verdict didn't overturn the current law.

Even if the state clarifies the corner crossing law I bet it will end up in the courts.

[popeandyoung151]

It will be interesting how many folks cross corners this year. The state needs to give a definitive ruling on if it’s legal or not.

[justletmein]

Originally Posted by popeandyoung151

It will be interesting how many folks cross corners this year. The state needs to give a definitive ruling on if it’s legal or not.

This. Hopefully the legislature will address it and make a ruling once and for all. As it is right now, even though it's probably doable, I wouldn't even think about it because I just don't like any kind of trouble or drama when I'm hunting.

[Killer]

So the corners touch on private property and there is public property on the two other side? Like a black and red checker board?

[Mossback]

Originally Posted by Killer

So the corners touch on private property and there is public property on the two other side? Like a black and red checker board?

yes

[Killer]

State needs to pass a law and install 5 or 6ft high metal stairs over the fence corners for walk-in hunting access. Would be an easy fix

[Lungbustr]

Originally Posted by Killer

State needs to pass a law and install 5 or 6ft high metal stairs over the fence corners for walk-in hunting access. Would be an easy fix

Why cant the state buy a 4 foot wide path under immenent domain? It would only be a few square feet of land.

[Uncle_Milty]

Originally Posted by Lungbustr

Why cant the state buy a 4 foot wide path under immenent domain? It would only be a few square feet of land.

That would be ideal but from everything I have read around this whole incident a significant portion of the private checker board pieces are owned by the Mega Rich who have no issues throwing their money around to keep things tied up in litigation. They want to keep their private land and the public land too by not allowing access.

There are some really good articles out there around this instance in particular as well as how all of this land came to be.

IMO.......You should be able to access the public just as these individuals did and were rightfully found to be not guilty. Just as someone else said legislation needs to be drafted so that this is no longer and issue.

[El General]

Originally Posted by Lungbustr

Why cant the state buy a 4 foot wide path under immenent domain? It would only be a few square feet of land.

Because there are thousands of checkerboard situations like this all across the west.

[Beargrasstx]

Originally Posted by Lungbustr

Why cant the state buy a 4 foot wide path under immenent domain? It would only be a few square feet of land.

This is my thought. It is a public land paid by taxpayers and should have imminent domain for access

[backwoods]

It’s obvious that the land owner suffered no harm from having someone “step over” his land and invade his air space.
The landowner is upset that the public is now using public land that he thought he had de facto exclusive rights to. Landowner should be happy that he was able to scare off the public for as long as he did and enjoy his piece tax free hunting land all to him self.

The whole case is interesting, but almost comical. If I were on just I’d have a hard time keeping a straight face

[Razrbk89]

Originally Posted by backwoods

It’s obvious that the land owner suffered no harm from having someone “step over” his land and invade his air space.
The landowner is upset that the public is now using public land that he thought he had de facto exclusive rights to. Landowner should be happy that he was able to scare off the public for as long as he did and enjoy his piece tax free hunting land all to him self.

The whole case is interesting, but almost comical. If I were on just I’d have a hard time keeping a straight face

That’s my take on it as well. I don’t understand the landowner getting bent out of shape over it.

[warrington]

Originally Posted by Lungbustr

Why cant the state buy a 4 foot wide path under immenent domain? It would only be a few square feet of land.

\

[Dale Moser]

“Like a king” lol, morons. That’s a statement contrived for weak minded fools, and they found 6.

In the end, this will hurt public access, in my opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flywise]

Some folks are just plain sorry as hell.....and they end up there as well

[flywise]

So, the prosecutor tried to say that air space is owned as well.....well how high? Would they prevent a helicopter from flying over the land to access public land?

[Dale Moser]

Originally Posted by flywise

So, the prosecutor tried to say that air space is owned as well.....well how high? Would they prevent a helicopter from flying over the land to access public land?

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

[HankTheTank]

Originally Posted by flywise

So, the prosecutor tried to say that air space is owned as well.....well how high? Would they prevent a helicopter from flying over the land to access public land?

Pretty sure I've seen hunting videos where people have done this where flying in was the only way to access public?

Originally Posted by Dale Moser

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

Forgive my ignorance on the matter. Aren't people allowed to fly drones over private property, which can record picture/video? Why can a person's property (drone) under their control occupy someone else's property (airspace), but not the person themself?

[flywise]

Originally Posted by Dale Moser

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]

Originally Posted by flywise

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?

[flywise]

Originally Posted by Dale Moser

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.

[wytex]

There is no law in Wyoming addressing this issue.

They were found not guilty of criminal trespass because they did not intend to hunt on the private property. A civil trespass case is pending in Federal court and that may set precedent.

The checkerboard lands were set aside to help the railroads populate the west and expand, miles along a corridor for the tracks. The land involved in the suit happens to be a nice mountain with lots of elk. Folks have been having issues with that landowner for years, past owners too.

We will see state legislation addressing this I believe, deep pockets will want a law prohibiting it.

WG&F will not and has not cited anyone for corner crossing. Many folks do it just fine without issues.

[wytex]

The jury got it right, the defendants did not trespass under criminal law in Wyoming.
They had no intent to be on private property and were not on private property. They crossed the airspace over the corner via a ladder.
The civil case is going to Federal court.

Here's some info on trespassing in Wyoming :https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/...ryTrespass.pdf

[joey1656]

So the area of land they trespassed on was basically half the width of their body? LOL. I couldnt see prosecuting someone who did that on our lease or land. IF they shot an animal on the private land and drug it across- then hell yeah lock em up.

[SabineHunter]

Seems to me that there is an easy solution to this if I was the land owner. I would build a 20' high fence on the four sides, culminating at the center point. The fence only needs to be a couple of panels long. Sort of like a 20' X. Now, try to get a ladder up and over that. I am a property rights guy and don't like trespassers.

[El General]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

Seems to me that there is an easy solution to this if I was the land owner. I would build a 20' high fence on the four sides, culminating at the center point. The fence only needs to be a couple of panels long. Sort of like a 20' X. Now, try to get a ladder up and over that. I am a property rights guy and don't like trespassers.

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.

[SabineHunter]

Originally Posted by El General

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.

If the gov wanted to reverse my scenero, I'd be ****** but it's their right too. In my scenero, i wouldn't be eliminating my access to public land.

[Dale Moser]

Originally Posted by El General

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

[dfkoon]

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.

[SabineHunter]

Originally Posted by dfkoon

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]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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

[SabineHunter]

Originally Posted by flywise

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?

[flywise]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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. [B]Do you trust the gov?

Nope, dont trust the gov. but a man who intentionally prevents tax payers from accessing their land is a bigger bag of **** than the gov.
And sure the gov. could pay for an easement but who a land owner sell at a market rate for it,no. He would most likely try and strong arm the tax payers with price that would be unreasonable, after all if the tax payer wont pay it he gets to keep and control land you and i pay for.

[Uncle_Milty]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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.

[SabineHunter]

Originally Posted by Mbbriggs05

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?

[El General]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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.

[Uncle_Milty]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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?

Lol....you often seem to get rather excited when someone doesn't directly agree with your viewpoint.

I have done the same with getting permission before as well. No one accused you of whining or crying so calm down. I know both sides as well. Each situation is unique and I can objectively look at that an adult. I also can honestly say that if I were in the same scenario as the landowner in this scenario that as long as you weren't poaching and crossing at the corner then I wouldn't be attempting to throw someone in jail.

[hpdrifter]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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?

There should be a law you can not block public property.

[dfkoon]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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]

Originally Posted by dfkoon

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......

[dfkoon]

Originally Posted by SabineHunter

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

This case, the hunters had a ladder from one public section to another. And the land owner had them brought up on charges (for violating his airspace) and still has a civil case against them. As I read it, the land owner is preventing access to public land. In Texas if you buy land that is locked in, you have a right to access that land. Nothing is different here. These guys were not poaching. So if folks can't be reasonable then ED is an answer to prevent the harassment of others. Likely the only case of ED I would support.

I'm also not a fan of hunter harassments.