Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: WY Corner Crossers

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,880

    Default WY Corner Crossers

    Judge rules in favor of corner-crossing hunters

    Angus M. Thuermer Jr.
    WYOFILE.COM
    May 30, 2023

    A federal judge ruled Friday that four Missouri hunters did not trespass when they corner crossed and passed through the airspace above Fred Eshelman’s Elk Mountain Ranch.

    Chief U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl granted the hunters’ request to dismiss most of Eshelman’s lawsuit that claimed the men trespassed and caused more than $7 million in damages. The men corner-crossed in 2020 and 2021 to hunt public land enmeshed in Eshelman’s 22,045-acre ranch.

    Corner crossing involves stepping from one piece of public land to another at the common corner with two pieces of private property, all arranged in a checkerboard pattern. Corner crossing avoids setting foot on private land.

    The ruling has implications for public access to 8.3 million acres of “corner locked” public land in the U.S. The hunters argued that the federal Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prevents Eshelman from obstructing access across the corner.

    “This is a long overdue and singularly great outcome for the entire American public and anybody who enjoys public lands,” the hunters’ attorney Ryan Semerad said. He and his colleagues “fully expect” an appeal.

    The judge’s ruling did not address the disputed allegation that one hunter, Zach Smith, did set foot on ranch property at a spot well removed from one of several contested corners. A digital “waypoint” that Smith created in 2020 on the onX hunting app is located on Eshelman property, the ranch owner says. That proves Smith was on the ranch, the landowner and his attorneys have alleged.

    Smith and his lawyer say the “Waypoint 6” could have been made from anywhere and its location proves nothing.

    “A genuine dispute of material fact exists to preclude summary judgment concerning the alleged Waypoint 6 trespassing (which does not involve corner crossing)” Skavdahl wrote in his 32-page order. Any damages Eshelman would claim for that alleged transgression would be limited to “nominal damages” and not the $7.75 million Eshelman had claimed in lost ranch value, the judge wrote.

    Skavdahl has scheduled a trial in June where that now-separate Waypoint 6 trespass allegation could be resolved.

    “We do not know what will come of the remaining issue of material fact,” Semerad said of what he called “errant Waypoint 6.”

    “For now, all my clients are very, very happy,” he said.

    Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers launched a fundraising campaign in 2021 to ensure the hunters, Smith, Bradly Cape, Phillip Yeomans and John Slowensky, could have their day in court. The organization hailed the ruling.

    “Today was a win for the people, both in Wyoming and across the country,” Land Tawney, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers president and CEO, said in a statement. “The court’s ruling confirms that it was legal for the Missouri Four to step from public land to public land over a shared public/private corner.

    “Coupled with recent legislation passed by the Wyoming Legislature, we are happy that common sense and the rule of law prevailed,” his statement reads. “Backcountry Hunters & Anglers applauds the court’s careful balancing of access to public land and respect of private property rights. We look forward to finding more solutions to access — together.”

    Skavdahl observed that with respect to the corner crossing issue “[t]here is no evidence the hunters made physical contact with [Eshelman’s] private land or caused any damage to plaintiff’s private property,” either in 2020 or 2021. The judge also agreed with Eshelman that he generally owns the airspace above his property and is entitled to use it.

    But even property rights come with limitations and restrictions, Skavdahl wrote.

    “History, federal case law, federal statutory law, and recent Wyoming legislation demonstrate corner crossing in the manner done by Defendants in this case is just such a restriction on Plaintiff’s property rights,” he wrote. “[D]efendants, ‘in common with other persons [have] the right to the benefit of the public domain,’ which necessarily requires some limitation on the adjoining private landowner’s right of exclusion within the checkerboard pattern of land ownership.”

    The judge summarized and analyzed relevant court precedent to conclude that “corner crossing on foot in the checkerboard pattern of land ownership, without physically, contacting private land and, without causing damage to private property does not constitute an unlawful trespass.”

    Even when the hunters grabbed two Elk Mountain Ranch fence posts, chained together as an obstacle at the first corner they encountered, and swung around them to step from public land to public land, they were protected by the UIA, which prevents landowners from blocking access to public land, the judge said.


    WyoFile could not reach Eshelman’s attorneys Friday afternoon.

    https://trib.com/news/state-regional...a7a560149.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the middle of it
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    The Missouri Four? CEO may want to dial back the drama a bit. We’re talking about a dick landowner suing some people, lets not act like the BHA is breaking down racial barriers in Arkansas.
    Last edited by wskinner; 06-02-2023 at 10:30 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Caused $7 million in damages? What a joke. Even if they had made one footstep on his property because they stepped 2 inches to the left of the actual "corner", how could that have caused any monetary damage?

    Some people just suck and as much as I don't wish harm on anyone, I wouldn't be too upset about it happening. What kind of a person already has 22k acres to himself and tries to sue a few hunters for $7 million because they possibly made one footstep at the corner of it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wskinner View Post
    The Missouri Four? CEO may want to dial back the drama a bit. We’re talking about a dick landowner suing some people, lets not act like the BHA is breaking down racial barriers in Arkansas.
    I'm not much of a fan of BHA but I'd have to say this is a big deal. Had the ruling gone in favor of the landowner, that would set a very bad precedent for public land access. So much of that BLM land in Midwest and Western states is in that checkerboard pattern.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyD714 View Post
    Caused $7 million in damages? What a joke. Even if they had made one footstep on his property because they stepped 2 inches to the left of the actual "corner", how could that have caused any monetary damage?

    Some people just suck and as much as I don't wish harm on anyone, I wouldn't be too upset about it happening. What kind of a person already has 22k acres to himself and tries to sue a few hunters for $7 million because they possibly made one footstep at the corner of it?
    One that is using government land that he thought couldn’t be accessed to run a house service.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    spartanburg
    Posts
    4,453

    Default

    What's to keep someone from being dropped off in the middle by helicopter?
    Low country redneck who moved north

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    6,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyD714 View Post
    Caused $7 million in damages? What a joke. Even if they had made one footstep on his property because they stepped 2 inches to the left of the actual "corner", how could that have caused any monetary damage?

    Some people just suck and as much as I don't wish harm on anyone, I wouldn't be too upset about it happening. What kind of a person already has 22k acres to himself and tries to sue a few hunters for $7 million because they possibly made one footstep at the corner of it?


    I read it as a loss of value, not physical damage caused by the trespassing.

    From the article: "Any damages Eshelman would claim for that alleged transgression would be limited to “nominal damages” and not the $7.75 million Eshelman had claimed in lost ranch value, the judge wrote."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mudflat View Post
    What's to keep someone from being dropped off in the middle by helicopter?
    If cost didn't rule it out. Most state game laws have something to say about it. Then some of that land is federal BLM what not, so there are typically federal limitations as well.
    "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12

    "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinghagen#12 View Post
    I read it as a loss of value, not physical damage caused by the trespassing.

    From the article: "Any damages Eshelman would claim for that alleged transgression would be limited to “nominal damages” and not the $7.75 million Eshelman had claimed in lost ranch value, the judge wrote."
    Ah, I read that but it must've not stuck with me. So is he claiming that his land is less valuable now that people figured out how to legally access adjacent public land he previously thought he'd locked the public out of? And he wants to sue the hunters for that value?

    If so, my assessment of this person hasn't changed. Might have gotten worse.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,212

    Default

    This ruling changes the game out west DRASTICALLY. At first thought, all the eastern Antelope tags just got a whole lot more popular. Not to mention the shift in some muley tags and even elk tags in plains areas. May help some of you high point guys by finally easing the pressure off of the more sought after units. That is, if the droughts and extreme winters will lay off long enough for numbers to recover.

    My assumption will be that hunters will shoot themselves in the foot with this though. The giddy, over eagerness will cause some jackwangs to really screw things up thereby encouraging local politicians to create a ruling to make the corner crossing illegal by actual law. The pressure from current landowners will be massive already because this puts an end to a lot of "private" public ground that has been personal play grounds and cash cows for the fortunate few.

    3 years tops and we will be worse off than when we started.
    "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12

    "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyD714 View Post
    Ah, I read that but it must've not stuck with me. So is he claiming that his land is less valuable now that people figured out how to legally access adjacent public land he previously thought he'd locked the public out of? And he wants to sue the hunters for that value?.
    This isn't some abstract thought, land out there is often sold with things like that in mind. It's been a unspoken understanding for generations that parcels can be purchased systematically to procure/block off even larger sections. Some land owners have even gone as far to shut down what once were public access roads to keep the public from accessing certain tracts. The road system is vast and sections so rural that it is rarely ever challenged or fought.
    "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." John 15:12

    "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The Wild, Wild West
    Posts
    3,515

    Default

    The waypoint 6 allegation is silly; I create waypoints on private land where bulls are seen or heard or where I suspect an animal might be without ever going in the land just to keep track of animal movement and strategize about where I think they might come to public and how I can be there when they do…it’s merely a reference point that can be placed anywhere from anywhere. Hell, I’ll mark stuff from home that’s 100 miles away. Should never make it to court.

    The ruling is just, but I think it is going to cause a ton of conflict during the first two or three seasons from now. There are some landowners that are going to wax Yellowstone on this one, and I fear at least a couple of confrontations will spiral out of hand resulting in someone getting hurt or someone having personal property damaged/destroyed. I hope I’m wrong and everyone will respect each other while this plays out and laws become clearly set as precedent dictates.
    “I can’t wait ‘till I’m grown” is the stupidest @!#* I ever said!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    6,240

    Default

    I corner crossed in Montana last year when I was deer hunting. Public to public, one side of the private checkerboard was someone I didn't know, the other side of the private checkerboard gave me permission to cross using their land. I came back after hunting one evening to a note on my truck basically telling me I was a piece of shit, the game warden had my plates and vehicle description, and if I came back he'd go after me with as much as he could for trespassing. I went back to the same spot the next evening, put a note from the landowner I had permission from under my wiper, and then left him a nice note from me with my phone number, name, and what I thought about the son of a bitch ... Unfortunately I never heard from him.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manning
    Posts
    11,388

    Default

    I might have misunderstood, but the way I read that, you have to cross in the airspace, by using a ladder. If that's so, then the ruling is heading in the right direcetion, but still has a way to go.

    But again, I'm not a smart man and didn't read it real thoroughly.
    Last edited by quackaddict; 06-02-2023 at 11:50 AM.
    Man and other animals were first vegetarians; then Noah and his sons were given permission to eat meat: “every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” Genesis 9:3

    "A man may not care for golf and still be human, but the man who does not like to see, hunt, photograph or otherwise outwit birds or animals is hardly normal. He is supercivilized, and I for one do not know how to deal with him." Aldo Leopold

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    661

    Default

    If you step from corner to corner with a foot on public each side then you’re in the airspace. No ladder needed. How wide is the actual property line? Who owns the land taken up by the width of the property line? So many dumb arguments here. You can step across never leaving Public. I can’t see any way this isn’t legal.
    More Ducks, Less People

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scquackaddict View Post
    If you step from corner to corner with a foot on public each side then you’re in the airspace. No ladder needed. How wide is the actual property line? Who owns the land taken up by the width of the property line? So many dumb arguments here. You can step across never leaving Public. I can’t see any way this isn’t legal.
    My guess is the reason legality is contested here is because the people wanting to make it illegal have a LOT of money.

    The majority, if not all, of the people prohibiting corner crossing are big ranch owners. Multi millionaires who purposely buy chunks of private land with the intent of locking people out of the encompassed public land.

    As MM stated above, they even go as far as to block off public access roads sometimes.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    united states of america
    Posts
    21,596

    Default

    Private property is either private or it's not.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moncks Corner
    Posts
    15,564

    Default

    It seems the checkerboard pattern is purposefully designed to give adjacent landowners privileged access to public property. It's a good decision.
    Ephesians 2 : 8-9



    Charles Barkley: Nobody doesn't like meat.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blythewood
    Posts
    16,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sportin' Woodies View Post
    Private property is either private or it's not.
    Yep.

    Two way street too. If it's public, it's public. If it's private, it's private.
    "Freedom Isn't Free"
    _Spc. Thomas Caughman
    1983-2004

    Quote Originally Posted by Dook View Post
    Go tigers!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    The key here is “denial of summary judgment”.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •