Wyoming Corner Cross: landowner claims Millions in damages

[LDennis24]

[

Been keeping up with all these threads and trying not to comment.  I see both sides of the argument.....and is with most arguments / topics there is likely a middle ground.  With that said.....your last statement is a far stretch from reality.  That would be like saying you can't be anti VAX...if you believe COVID is real, when in doubt a person can believe COVID is real and still be anti VAX for other legitimate reasons. 

Just because someone does not agree with taking land away from a private land owner to grant access to public land.....does not make them a socialist / or not (to be honest, I'm not sure what argument you are making here).  It also does not imply a person is anti public service.   I just think you are making a faulty argument that if you are one....you can't be the other, when in doubt that is simply not the case. 

And for the record.....I don't necessarily agree with the landowner suing for damages.  I also don't agree that a (not necessarily the one suing) landowner should be forced to give up 1" of their land to grant access to public land that is landlocked.  Find another way....but don't take away from a guy that has purchased his land with hard earned money to appease the masses.  Blame who you want......don't blame the landowner.  If the law is no corner crossing....change the law.
[/quote]

Right, instead it's turned into, attack Dennis cuz he has a different opinion. It's not about how much money he has, but people say, he's trying to flex his pocketbook, and my points are called lazy but the true lazy argument is, just take it from that guy and give it to us! After all, he has plenty of MONEY! But most people only see that I support landowners in general, and am against eminent domain, ergo, I hate public service? Not even close.

[buckfvr]

Landlocked public land should be closed land to prevent the public land private hunting/grazing conundrum.   

[Platensek-po]

On another note - everyone go give $20 to $50 to these guys. If it is more than needed, it will go Yes access.

I am not going to get into an argument with the one person supporting this rancher. It isn't about him being crooked, its about him thinking he can strong arm these hunters because f his financial status. I 100% support working as hard as you want to be as rich as you want. Just don;t use that money o squeeze the heads of your fellowman!

We need this win for all of us that hunt public lands!

Weird, another comment about his money!

I didn't say I support the rancher 100%. I said I didn't believe he was owed that much in damages and I said that you can sue someone for devaluation of your land. So he has a chance. The decision on corner crossing was already determined, so everyone still whining about that is just that. A whiner. Some comments on the other thread where I posted this damage claim article again called for eminent domain to take from this ranch owner and give to the public. Once again, that's Socialism. So if that's what you favor in order to get your precious little hunting spot then I don't blame private landowners for a second when they deny people the opportunity to hunt. Enjoy yourselves. Empty your bank account for these hunters and send it to GoFundMe as well. 

So you are just straight up anti public lands. Got it.

No I am straight up you cannot have what you didn't earn. And you cannot take from a private landowner. I would never support a law that undermined public land access. NEVER! So again, I do not support the people saying, "Well you could just take ten feet of his land away for access." Sounds like something Joe Biden would support though. I don't get it? Can someone highlight where I said I was straight up anti public lands? Or am I being mischaracterized?

Oh my bad thought you were anti socialism. Since public lands are a socialist program I assumed you were against them. How did you think we got public lands in the first place other than the government just saying this now belongs to the people? So if you are for private land owners keeping people off of public lands, you support the rich and powerful using their resources to screw over the common man and say you hate socialism. Since you hate socialism so much I assumed you hated police, firefighters, public roads, public schools, and the myriad of other socialist programs the state runs.

Been keeping up with all these threads and trying not to comment.  I see both sides of the argument.....and is with most arguments / topics there is likely a middle ground.  With that said.....your last statement is a far stretch from reality.  That would be like saying you can't be anti VAX...if you believe COVID is real, when in doubt a person can believe COVID is real and still be anti VAX for other legitimate reasons. 

Just because someone does not agree with taking land away from a private land owner to grant access to public land.....does not make them a socialist / or not (to be honest, I'm not sure what argument you are making here).  It also does not imply a person is anti public service.   I just think you are making a faulty argument that if you are one....you can't be the other, when in doubt that is simply not the case. 

And for the record.....I don't necessarily agree with the landowner suing for damages.  I also don't agree that a (not necessarily the one suing) landowner should be forced to give up 1" of their land to grant access to public land that is landlocked.  Find another way....but don't take away from a guy that has purchased his land with hard earned money to appease the masses.  Blame who you want......don't blame the landowner.  If the law is no corner crossing....change the law.

No. He said socialism is bad. That must mean that all forms of socialism are bad. If you say that modern medicine is bad then I’m going to assume you are against all vaccines. Not pick and choose what parts you like and what parts you don’t. If you think that the government shouldn’t take land to hold in trust for the public then I’m assuming you are anti public lands. Using the argument that something is socialism and therefore is bad leads me to the conclusion that they must hate all forms of socialism in our society. Corner crossing as far as I can tell is neither illegal or legal. It’s literally undefined by law. That’s why this case was so important and interesting. It’s still literally decided nothing though. Cause corner crossing is still neither legalized or illegal. What is illegal is barring access to public land by a private landowner. Considering he had put a dunce and chain across both his private and public land one would hope that it would be deemed illegal. Since the landowner thinks that throwing money at everything will solve the issue then the state should toss him a few coins and take the land. Might makes right seems to be the argument in favor of the landowner.

[LDennis24]

Landlocked public land should be closed land to prevent the public land private hunting/grazing conundrum.   

Why not pay to play? Most of those parcels, if not all, are used for grazing and farming and those people pay to lease those rights. Money to support public lands? They earned it by paying for it. Everyone's all for public land until a guy who doesn't hunt shows up on opening day to shoot his AR and then he's an a-hole right!? Or the neighbor who doesn't hunt is walking their dogs on the public land parcel, then they are scum anti-hunters right. He doesn't hunt so how would he know it's opening day. He's just immediately an a-hole. I feel like that's how this thread has been. Immediately attack someone just for the difference of opinion without any forethought. Just react. Public service like the police dept and fire dept is not socialist. It's capitalism paid for by taxes and fines and fees, etc. 

[LDennis24]

It is NOT illegal to bar access to land even privately owned, let alone public land. You can bar access to anyone you want if you own the surrounding land unless there is an easement.

[Platensek-po]

Landlocked public land should be closed land to prevent the public land private hunting/grazing conundrum.   

Why not pay to play? Most of those parcels, if not all, are used for grazing and farming and those people pay to lease those rights. Money to support public lands? They earned it by paying for it. Everyone's all for public land until a guy who doesn't hunt shows up on opening day to shoot his AR and then he's an a-hole right!? Or the neighbor who doesn't hunt is walking their dogs on the public land parcel, then they are scum anti-hunters right. He doesn't hunt so how would he know it's opening day. He's just immediately an a-hole. I feel like that's how this thread has been. Immediately attack someone just for the difference of opinion without any forethought. Just react. Public service like the police dept and fire dept is not socialist. It's capitalism paid for by taxes and fines and fees, etc. 

Wow dude. Police are a social program run by the government by collecting taxes from society to pay for it. It’s like the definition of socialism lolololol. We all collectively agree that the government makes those decisions on behalf of the public. Unless you are saying that police departments are private enterprises operating for profit? Cause that would make them capitalist. Military, police, public schools, public roads, welfare, public lands, etc, are all
Socialist programs run by the government. They may interact with capitalist companies and have some capitalist functions but are social programs run by the government. Starting to understand what the issue is here. Once again this landowner has paid the government nothing for access to those lands. People may gripe on here about other user groups but I haven’t seen anyone say bar access for Joe Schmoe for
Just my betterment. Some may disagree with how the land is managed my the government but that’s why you vote and interact with those government agencies. It doesn’t always work out but it’s a lot better than trying to get some dude to
Give up his giant private hunting spot that actually belongs to everyone. He is more than welcome to continue to hunt that land along with anyone else who wants to

[Platensek-po]

It is NOT illegal to bar access to land even privately owned, let alone public land. You can bar access to anyone you want if you own the surrounding land unless there is an easement.

But on the corner he only owns half of it. The other half is public. He is literally fencing across public land to bar access to public land. The other half is private. That’s why it’s a tough issue.

[jrebel]

On another note - everyone go give $20 to $50 to these guys. If it is more than needed, it will go Yes access.

I am not going to get into an argument with the one person supporting this rancher. It isn't about him being crooked, its about him thinking he can strong arm these hunters because f his financial status. I 100% support working as hard as you want to be as rich as you want. Just don;t use that money o squeeze the heads of your fellowman!

We need this win for all of us that hunt public lands!

Weird, another comment about his money!

I didn't say I support the rancher 100%. I said I didn't believe he was owed that much in damages and I said that you can sue someone for devaluation of your land. So he has a chance. The decision on corner crossing was already determined, so everyone still whining about that is just that. A whiner. Some comments on the other thread where I posted this damage claim article again called for eminent domain to take from this ranch owner and give to the public. Once again, that's Socialism. So if that's what you favor in order to get your precious little hunting spot then I don't blame private landowners for a second when they deny people the opportunity to hunt. Enjoy yourselves. Empty your bank account for these hunters and send it to GoFundMe as well. 

So you are just straight up anti public lands. Got it.

No I am straight up you cannot have what you didn't earn. And you cannot take from a private landowner. I would never support a law that undermined public land access. NEVER! So again, I do not support the people saying, "Well you could just take ten feet of his land away for access." Sounds like something Joe Biden would support though. I don't get it? Can someone highlight where I said I was straight up anti public lands? Or am I being mischaracterized?

Oh my bad thought you were anti socialism. Since public lands are a socialist program I assumed you were against them. How did you think we got public lands in the first place other than the government just saying this now belongs to the people? So if you are for private land owners keeping people off of public lands, you support the rich and powerful using their resources to screw over the common man and say you hate socialism. Since you hate socialism so much I assumed you hated police, firefighters, public roads, public schools, and the myriad of other socialist programs the state runs.

Been keeping up with all these threads and trying not to comment.  I see both sides of the argument.....and is with most arguments / topics there is likely a middle ground.  With that said.....your last statement is a far stretch from reality.  That would be like saying you can't be anti VAX...if you believe COVID is real, when in doubt a person can believe COVID is real and still be anti VAX for other legitimate reasons. 

Just because someone does not agree with taking land away from a private land owner to grant access to public land.....does not make them a socialist / or not (to be honest, I'm not sure what argument you are making here).  It also does not imply a person is anti public service.   I just think you are making a faulty argument that if you are one....you can't be the other, when in doubt that is simply not the case. 

And for the record.....I don't necessarily agree with the landowner suing for damages.  I also don't agree that a (not necessarily the one suing) landowner should be forced to give up 1" of their land to grant access to public land that is landlocked.  Find another way....but don't take away from a guy that has purchased his land with hard earned money to appease the masses.  Blame who you want......don't blame the landowner.  If the law is no corner crossing....change the law.

No. He said socialism is bad. That must mean that all forms of socialism are bad. If you say that modern medicine is bad then I’m going to assume you are against all vaccines. Not pick and choose what parts you like and what parts you don’t. If you think that the government shouldn’t take land to hold in trust for the public then I’m assuming you are anti public lands. Using the argument that something is socialism and therefore is bad leads me to the conclusion that they must hate all forms of socialism in our society. Corner crossing as far as I can tell is neither illegal or legal. It’s literally undefined by law. That’s why this case was so important and interesting. It’s still literally decided nothing though. Cause corner crossing is still neither legalized or illegal. What is illegal is barring access to public land by a private landowner. Considering he had put a dunce and chain across both his private and public land one would hope that it would be deemed illegal. Since the landowner thinks that throwing money at everything will solve the issue then the state should toss him a few coins and take the land. Might makes right seems to be the argument in favor of the landowner.

Again...your argument is flawed in multiple ways...and really is a fools argument.  Because you are one, you can't be the other is a very bad argument, is simply not a valid argument.  I am against "socialism".....me personally.....That does not mean I am against public services. 

My guess is you land in the middle somewhere.  You likely believe that be a good steward of the land is important....Thus you must be an anti hunter is a faulty argument.  I know...I know....little bit of a drastic example, so lets use another. 

You likely enjoy the fact that you can call 911 if you break your leg and an ambulance will arrive to pick you up and transport you to the hospital.  You would call this a socialist network....their for you are a socialist.  How do you feel when that same ambulance sends you a bill for service?  In a true socialist society this would be paid for by taxes and taxes alone....but in our capitalistic society in which we live, this is reality, you will receive a bill.  Wait.....can you have both? because based on your definition / argument you have to be one or the other.  Even in King County (the most socialistic county in WA), you still may receive a bill for services rendered.   Maybe not from the Medic 1 program.....but very likely from a private ambulance service that renders services. 

Not everything in this world is black and white....regardless if that's the argument you want to make.  I am not a socialist....and I agree with a lot of social services.  You will never change my mind on this, regardless of the rhetoric your spew.   

[Platensek-po]

It is NOT illegal to bar access to land even privately owned, let alone public land. You can bar access to anyone you want if you own the surrounding land unless there is an easement.

But on the corner he only owns half of it. The other half is public. He is literally fencing across public land to bar access to public land. The other half is private. That’s why it’s a tough issue.

You understand that those hunters literally never set foot on his land right? Even he isn’t arguing that

[full choke]

[

Been keeping up with all these threads and trying not to comment.  I see both sides of the argument.....and is with most arguments / topics there is likely a middle ground.  With that said.....your last statement is a far stretch from reality.  That would be like saying you can't be anti VAX...if you believe COVID is real, when in doubt a person can believe COVID is real and still be anti VAX for other legitimate reasons. 

Just because someone does not agree with taking land away from a private land owner to grant access to public land.....does not make them a socialist / or not (to be honest, I'm not sure what argument you are making here).  It also does not imply a person is anti public service.   I just think you are making a faulty argument that if you are one....you can't be the other, when in doubt that is simply not the case. 

And for the record.....I don't necessarily agree with the landowner suing for damages.  I also don't agree that a (not necessarily the one suing) landowner should be forced to give up 1" of their land to grant access to public land that is landlocked.  Find another way....but don't take away from a guy that has purchased his land with hard earned money to appease the masses.  Blame who you want......don't blame the landowner.  If the law is no corner crossing....change the law.

Right, instead it's turned into, attack Dennis cuz he has a different opinion. It's not about how much money he has, but people say, he's trying to flex his pocketbook, and my points are called lazy but the true lazy argument is, just take it from that guy and give it to us! After all, he has plenty of MONEY! But most people only see that I support landowners in general, and am against eminent domain, ergo, I hate public service? Not even close.
[/quote]

That is correct. You are the victim. Poor you.

[cem3434]

It is NOT illegal to bar access to land even privately owned, let alone public land. You can bar access to anyone you want if you own the surrounding land unless there is an easement.

But on the corner he only owns half of it. The other half is public. He is literally fencing across public land to bar access to public land. The other half is private. That’s why it’s a tough issue.

You understand that those hunters literally never set foot on his land right? Even he isn’t arguing that

Isn't that what the criminal case proved? They literally never stepped foot on his property and they were acquitted. Dennis is arguing for the landowner that is now trying to cost the hunters additional undue financial hardship, which is the reason his money has even came into the conversation. Good for him for working hard and amassing wealth that most of us will never know, but bad on him for using his money to bully the hunters after they were already acquitted by a jury of their peers. The only way a reasonable person can view the landowners action at this point is I have screw you money and I'm going to break these hunters financially to prove his point. 

[boneaddict]

Deep breath. Step away. 

[Knocker of rocks]

Isn't that what the criminal case proved? They literally never stepped foot on his property and they were acquitted. Dennis is arguing for the landowner that is now trying to cost the hunters additional undue financial hardship, which is the reason his money has even came into the conversation. Good for him for working hard and amassing wealth that most of us will never know, but bad on him for using his money to bully the hunters after they were already acquitted by a jury of their peers. The only way a reasonable person can view the landowners action at this point is I have screw you money and I'm going to break these hunters financially to prove his point. 

Remember, both OJ and Tony Blake were found criminally innocent by jury and civilly liable.

Seems like the only question is where does a landowners control of airspace start. Somewhere between hovercraft and the U2.

[cem3434]

Great point(s) as I guess you can sue anyone for anything especially if you have the money to do so.

[fireweed]

What seems to be forgotten is that this issue--monopolizing public land in the checkboard for private gain--has already been addressed by the laws and policies of the USA and upheld by the supreme court.  The range wars were fought over this very issue.  The law addressing this (unlawful inclosure act) is old and was put in place for grazing, but its still on the books.  This lawsuit will decide if this federal law is applicable in this case and similar cases.  This isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1061