Just read the defense attorney's motion for dismissal filed today and it appears that maybe the Carbon County Attorney has either not read or taken a very narrowing reading of 43 USC Ch. 25: UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES OR OCCUPANCY; OBSTRUCTING SETTLEMENT OR TRANSIT Sections 1061 and 1063.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Just read the defense attorney's motion for dismissal filed today and it appears that maybe the Carbon County Attorney has either not read or taken a very narrowing reading of 43 USC Ch. 25: UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES OR OCCUPANCY; OBSTRUCTING SETTLEMENT OR TRANSIT Sections 1061 and 1063.

Here is how that reads, maybe someone else can make sense of this legal speak;
https://uscode.house.gov/view....ter25&edition=prelim
It's all Greek to me.

Ronco:
Thanks for posting this.

Just reading it all made my head spin!
George

New bill proposed.

https://www.gohunt.com/content...-crossing-definition

https://www.gohunt.com/content...corner-crossing-case

Charges dismissed in Wyoming corner crossing case



The controversial corner crossing case watched by hunters across the nation has come to a close – and it’s a positive one for the hunters involved. Last week, a six-member Carbon County, Wyoming jury found all four Missouri hunters not guilty of criminal trespass on Elk Mountain Ranch in 2021, according to WyoFile.

This clears Brad Cape, Phillip Yoemans, John Slowensky and Zach Smith from all charges and is a significant win within the corner crossing legal gray arena. The four nonresident hunters were charged with illegal trespassing after they traveled to Wyoming to hunt elk and mule deer on public land. However, to access the BLM-owned property, they had to step over an area where two of the corners were public and the other two were privately owned.
Corner crossing is an issue many western hunters are aware of navigating. It occurs when you step from one corner of public land to another, crossing over corners of private land to do so. According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, “crossing or entering private lands without landowner’s permission may result in a violation of Wyoming’s game and fish or criminal trespass statutes.” However, corner crossing isn’t the same as blatantly walking across private land to public. In fact, in 2004, the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office issued an official opinion that acknowledged the difficulty in determining whether corner crossing violated that game and fish trespass statute.
In February, as a result of the case, HB0103 – Prohibit travel across private land for hunting purposes was filed in an effort to broaden the definition of hunter trespass; however, the bill appears to have not progressed further.
Organizations like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers supported the four hunters, raising over $71,000 for their legal fees via a GoFundMe page.

https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/...vod-clipped-version/


Local news story on the case.

https://www.themeateater.com/c...corner-crossing-case

RANCH OWNER CLAIMS OVER $7 MILLION IN DAMAGES IN CORNER CROSSING CASE


JORDAN SILLARS
Sep 9, 2022



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 damages of between $3.1 million and $7.75 million. Attorney Gregory Weisz signed the documents on August 29 and sent them to the individuals involved in the case, according to the outlet.

“[This disclosure] says things that have been unsaid for a long time,” Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA), told MeatEater. “What they are saying is that they have the sole right to that public land and that if we the people have access to it, that diminishes the value of their ranch. That has not been said publicly, really ever.”

The hunters never set foot on the ranch’s property, which is owned by North Carolina businessman Fredric Eshelman. Instead, they used a ladder to cross between one block of public land to another at the corner where the blocks meet. They were cleared of criminal trespass charges in April, but a separate civil case is still before the U.S. District Court for Wyoming.

In that case, Eshelman and his attorneys are claiming as much as $7.75 million in damages based on a possible 10-25% devaluation of the ranch. A decision to legalize corner crossing could devalue a ranch “by the fact it’s no longer closed property—it’s open to public crossing,” Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, told WyoFile.

The 22,042-acre property, along with the buildings, were appraised at $31.31 million in 2017.

MeatEater has not reviewed the disclosure statement, but experts say that as it appears on its face, Eshelman’s claim makes little legal sense.

“Damages in the context of a civil trespass have to be related to the actual trespass event. This damage claim doesn't necessarily relate to the alleged trespass,” David Willms told MeatEater. Willms is an attorney, hunter, senior director for Western Wildlife at the National Wildlife Federation, and former policy advisor to the Governor of Wyoming.

Eshelman’s damage claim would only come to fruition if the court found that there this is (and always has been) a legal right to access, Willms explained. A decision in the hunters’ favor could devalue Elk Mountain Ranch, and Willms does not necessarily take issue with the appraiser’s estimate.

However, such a decision would have nothing to do with the hunters or their actions on the day in question. In fact, if the court finds that corner crossing is legal, it would exonerate the hunters of civil trespass and Eshelman would no longer have a case.

If the court rules against the hunters and finds that they tresspassed, on the other hand, the damages must be directly related to the trespass event. Willms doesn’t see how momentarily crossing into the airspace of Elk Mountain Ranch could possibly devalue the ranch by 10-25%.

“Based on what’s in the public sphere and what I’ve seen, it’s going to be tough to prove any kind of actual damages,” Willms said.

In other words, Eshelman can’t have his cake and eat it, too. Either the hunters did trespass, in which case his damages are nothing close to $7.75 million; or, the hunters did not trespass, in which case there is no basis for awarding damages even if the ranch is devalued.

Willms speculates that the ranch’s lawyers may be claiming these damages to communicate to the judge the gravity of his decision. A federal case in favor of corner crossing could have sweeping implications for ranches across the West. There are currently about 8.3 million acres of corner-locked public land in 11 Western states, according to onX Maps. Opening those parcels to public access could devalue some of those ranches, and landowners like Eshelman are understandably concerned about the consequences of sudden public access.

Magagna told MeatEater that public land advocates should seek compromise rather than division with landowners. He does not believe the courts will rule in the hunters’ favor, but he does believe making a “major issue” out of this case is “going to harden more landowners against willingly granting access.”

While Tawney of BHA called Eshelman’s claims “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” he believes there is a solution that works for both public land users and landowners.

“Let’s figure out how we can work with hunters and anglers to access public land without treading on private land,” he said. “Nobody wants to willfully trespass on private land or cause impacts to that land. Without private landowners who are good stewards, we wouldn’t have the populations we have today. At the same time, let’s recognize that they don’t own our public land. We have to have access to it.”

This case stems from a 2021 incident involving four Missouri hunters: Phillip Yeomans, Bradly Cape, John Slowensky and Zachary Smith. The group had been targeting elk and mule deer on public land in Carbon County, Wyoming, when they used a ladder to jump from one parcel of public land to another at the point where the parcels touched. They were charged with trespassing, and the case has received national attention for how it might implicate public land access. Click here to read a great summary of the case.

quote:

Originally posted by RAR60:
This is one of the top issues that inflames me with western hunting. I understand how these checkerboard tracts got started and it needs to be dealt with to the benefit of of the recreational public. The way it is now the ranch/boundary owners have their own private access to the exclusion of the public. So if they have 5,000 deeded acres and the other tracts entail 10,000 acres they more or less have 15,000 acres at their disposal not you. Wyoming in particular, that has excluded non-resident hunters from wilderness UNLESS you hunt with one of their cartel outfitters. I have hunted WY many times and it is a beautiful game rich state as other western states but they have used this and other issues to exclude DIY sportsmen.
As far as the air thing that was instituted as another BS roadblock. OnXmaps is a great tool to keep everybody honest. It's time to get a ruling that clarifies this big issue for all concerned.
The only way these hunters can prevail is it gets enough attention that the local gendarmes can't let the "Good Ole Boy" network prevail. I wouldn't be surprised if this rancher is also one of the outfitter cartel.

I do not understand why the State does not use its power to just build roads across the private to the public.

A State Highway cuts right through the middle of my property. You can connect this roads accessing public to the nearest state or Fed highway.

I know Montana have built roads in few places.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by RAR60:
This is one of the top issues that inflames me with western hunting. I understand how these checkerboard tracts got started and it needs to be dealt with to the benefit of of the recreational public. The way it is now the ranch/boundary owners have their own private access to the exclusion of the public. So if they have 5,000 deeded acres and the other tracts entail 10,000 acres they more or less have 15,000 acres at their disposal not you. Wyoming in particular, that has excluded non-resident hunters from wilderness UNLESS you hunt with one of their cartel outfitters. I have hunted WY many times and it is a beautiful game rich state as other western states but they have used this and other issues to exclude DIY sportsmen.
As far as the air thing that was instituted as another BS roadblock. OnXmaps is a great tool to keep everybody honest. It's time to get a ruling that clarifies this big issue for all concerned.
The only way these hunters can prevail is it gets enough attention that the local gendarmes can't let the "Good Ole Boy" network prevail. I wouldn't be surprised if this rancher is also one of the outfitter cartel.

I do not understand why the State does not use its power to just build roads across the private to the public.

A State Highway cuts right through the middle of my property. You can connect this roads accessing public to the nearest state or Fed highway.

That is a really stupid idea - I own land in CO that I bought because it borders natl forest and BLM land and it is basically landlocked - there is nowhere for a "road" to go. So I am supposed to give that up because you didn't buy that land?

Did you buy your land before or after that highway was put it?

I build roads. Your property touches a road somewhere or easement otherwise you cannot access it.

Build roads. States do it all the time.

We bought our land before the State Highway.

You people have no idea how Government works.

Any state can take your land for compensation whether you like it or not for public roads.

It is called the Right of Eminent Domain. The S. Ct. has even ruled the Federal Constitution allows a State to take your property for compensation over your objection and give it to a private developer.

The State can take your property tomorrow, if it wants for compensation and public good.

That is just the way it is.

The State cannot take Fed land. However, the Geds Allie us to drive across or at least walk and camp on BLM land.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I build roads. Your property touches a road somewhere or easement otherwise you cannot access it.

Build roads. States do it all the time.

We bought our land before the State Highway.

You people have no idea how Government works.

Any state can take your land for compensation whether you like it or not for public roads.

It is called the Right of Eminent Domain. The S. Ct. has even ruled the Federal Constitution allows a State to take your property for compensation over your objection and give it to a private developer.

The State can take your property tomorrow, if it wants for compensation and public good.

That is just the way it is.

The State cannot take Fed land. However, the Geds Allie us to drive across or at least walk and camp on BLM land.

I know what Eminent Domain is, but there is no way a state is going to use it to build a road through private property so the public can access public land not owned by the state. In my case, I access my property using a private road and then an easement. Not sure any government would "take" that road given all the property owners that would be impacted.

they don't have to build anything.
all they gotta do is pass a law stating landowners must make their fences so there is a 4-5 foot opening away from public land that touches public land and there will be a walk in access.

the access will be more than obvious and it'd take like 20 bucks to put in a sign saying public access.

I doubt a land owner with 5-K acres will have any lawsuit at that point and clearly will not miss a few feet of land at the corner.

he will however miss all those dollars he was formerly getting selling 'hunts' on that public property.

I have hunted public lands here in the west 55 years. This is typical harassment of many ranchers in the west . I can't count how many times greedy ranchers have harassed me and my friends. including smashing the windows in my camper because I hunted State land bordering his ranch. (he did get arrested.) I have never trespassed or corner crossed. I have no respect for them. Now days that GPS lets law abiding hunters access more land, the ranchers can not stand it because they dominated our public lands for so many years. Always turn them in . That is the only way it stops.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
they don't have to build anything.
all they gotta do is pass a law stating landowners must make their fences so there is a 4-5 foot opening away from public land that touches public land and there will be a walk in access.

the access will be more than obvious and it'd take like 20 bucks to put in a sign saying public access.

I doubt a land owner with 5-K acres will have any lawsuit at that point and clearly will not miss a few feet of land at the corner.

he will however miss all those dollars he was formerly getting selling 'hunts' on that public property.

For checkerboard public lands, I would not have a problem with that.

because of the harassment by Wyoming ranchers on this issue maybe it is time for all hunters, fishermen and out doors enthusiasts should boycott Wyoming until this issue has been taken care of the the hunters involved in this case receive cash settlements for the harassments that they have received and let the state and all business loose millions of dollars per year and then the businesses can force the state to fix this issue. `

quote:

Originally posted by hydehunter:
because of the harassment by Wyoming ranchers on this issue maybe it is time for all hunters, fishermen and out doors enthusiasts should boycott Wyoming until this issue has been taken care of the the hunters involved in this case receive cash settlements for the harassments that they have received and let the state and all business loose millions of dollars per year and then the businesses can force the state to fix this issue. `

I agree wholeheartedly! And don’t turn in for our draw either, that will really show us!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by hydehunter:
because of the harassment by Wyoming ranchers on this issue maybe it is time for all hunters, fishermen and out doors enthusiasts should boycott Wyoming until this issue has been taken care of the the hunters involved in this case receive cash settlements for the harassments that they have received and let the state and all business loose millions of dollars per year and then the businesses can force the state to fix this issue. `

I agree wholeheartedly! And don’t turn in for our draw either, that will really show us!!

Your fish and game might have other ideas about loosing millions of dollars in funds.

ours will not worry, p dog shooter lives in Wis and I live in So Dakota

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by hydehunter:
because of the harassment by Wyoming ranchers on this issue maybe it is time for all hunters, fishermen and out doors enthusiasts should boycott Wyoming until this issue has been taken care of the the hunters involved in this case receive cash settlements for the harassments that they have received and let the state and all business loose millions of dollars per year and then the businesses can force the state to fix this issue. `

I agree wholeheartedly! And don’t turn in for our draw either, that will really show us!!

Your fish and game might have other ideas about loosing millions of dollars in funds.

Firstly, it is lose, not loose. Secondly, how is a boycott going to help? If you want to help these hunters, which will in turn help all hunters, donate to their defense through the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as I did.

Didn't say it was good or bad.

Just stating the fact that not taking in millions of dollars of revenue.

Could be a problem

https://wyofile.com/judge-rule...er-crossing-hunters/



Judge rules in favor of corner-crossing hunters

Skavdahl dismisses most of the claims made by the owner of the Elk Mountain Ranch who said Missouri hunters trespassed when they stepped over a corner of his Carbon County ranch.


by Angus M. Thuermer Jr.
May 26, 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.

“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.”

JUDGE SCOTT SKAVDAHL

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.”


Zach Smith holds the ladder used to surmount fence posts to reach public land adjacent to Elk Mountain Ranch in this exhibit filed in the trespassing lawsuit. (Exhibit/U.S. District Court)
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.

This case is trending in the right direction for us public land hunters.

link to the judges order.

https://storage.courtlistener....s.wyd.60677.83.0.pdf

He entered summary judgement for the defendant granting the dismissal for all but 1 claim by the landowner and limited to the single remaining claim to $100 in damages effectively killing it.

This may begin to have far reaching implications. I wonder when the first case will come about where someone cuts the lock on a chain across a public road that passes thru private land to reach public land accessible by that road.

quote:

they were protected by the UIA, which prevents landowners from blocking access to public land, the judge said.

Wouldn't this apply to your example Mike?

Query: Do you cut the lock in order to obtain access over a public road to public land(claiming that the private land owner had illegally blocked the public from using an ongoing public road to access public land) or do you go to court to obtain a permanent injunction, enjoining the private land owner from blocking public land access over an ongoing public road, merely because the public road runs through private land, that eventually connects to public land? Might it be a different outcome if the public road ends at the private property?

UEG,

I don't know the answer it might be taken as mitigating circumstance and might play well in front of a jury but there would probably be a criminal and civil issue of vandalism and property damage to the landowner's property; i.e., the lock and the chain, and courts generally taken a very dim view of individuals exercising their own remedies (sometimes called "self-help") especialy when the remedy "injures" the other party and the non-landowner would be effectively enforcing the law which he/she does not have the auhority to do so.

quote:

I wonder when the first case will come about where someone cuts the lock on a chain across a public road that passes thru private land to reach public land accessible by that road.

Far easier to cut the chain and add your own lock.

Well then you would be violating the same Federal law.

The checkerboard lands is a bloody mess as a legal/access issue:

OUR tax dollars support the "public" half, yet we're not allowed to access.

On the other side, when the landowner bought the land, they did so knowing that they'd double their acreage due to "checkerboarding".

I DEFINITELY see both sides. But the issue needs to be resolved. I don't want my tax dollars supporting land that taxpayers are not allowed to set foot on.

I don't see both sides on this one.

You can like or not like the UIA of 1885 but it's the law.

The landowners in this case were inappropriately violating Federal law and Wyoming DOJ had been enabling that for many years by declaring and or prosecuting corner crossing is/as illegal.

I'll ask again - somebody find a case in all of US juris prudence where somebody has been prosecuted for waiving their arm or leg over somebody's property line.

As for the landowner buying the property with certain expecatations, well they were misinformed, happens all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Baker458:
On the other side, when the landowner bought the land, they did so knowing that they'd double their acreage due to "checkerboarding".

The corner crossing issue has never been settled.

Prior to this ruling, properties for sale in Wyoming that included landlocked federal land would include a disclaimer stating that in previous cases, Wyoming courts have ruled that private land cannot be crossed to access public land without the landowner’s permission.

The landowners definitely knew that this issue had not been settled, but they enjoyed the fact that they were able to keep law enforcement and the county prosecutors on their side.

But that disclaimer leads me to believe that the landowners knew that a shift in legal precedent was on the horizon.