Wyoming Corner Cross: landowner claims Millions in damages

[Mark Brenckle]

This thread is what happens when there's a train wreck at one of those corners.     

[LDennis24]

You mean when I get there 10 minutes before you and put my ladder over the corner and you're not allowed to touch my ladder so you just have to stand and wait. Ergo, I'm taking the public land and using it for my own personal benefit!

[full choke]

Dennis cem was referring to your example map you gave that had nothing to do with corner crossing so grow up and try to comprehend when someone points out the flaw in your example
Have a good day

You guys are the reason I hope the landowners win this issue. I have no problem with people accessing public land. I have a problem with people who don't pay attention. I WAS POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE SAYING THE UNLAWFUL INCLOSURES ACT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO ACCESS PUBLIC LAND DOESN'T APPLY HERE! Go back to the post from Dan-O and Knocker of Rocks. I was responding to them asking how it applies. I SAID IT DOESN'T! You guys need help I think. Seriously. Dan-O said, I don't see how this applies to corner crossing, so I said it doesn't. It just has a blanket statement about not enclosing land so I put a pic of some land that is clearly enclosed. The act makes no exception for that parcel, so it obviously relates to something else. Can you really not see what I'm talking about? Really?

.

[full choke]

The Eaton Ranch completely surrounds the public land in question, so there is no legal access to those parcels you have pictured.  Comparing corner crossing where there is legal access to at least  one parcel allowing you to get to a "corner crossing" situation versus waltzing across someone's private property is comparing apples to oranges.

Ask stupid questions and you'll get stupid answers.

.

You give stupid answers regardless. So then, what does the unlawful inclosures act have to do with it? What does it mean? It means nothing. You can only access public land that already has an access point. So if he builds a fence at the corner ten feet high you can cross as long as you don't touch his fence. Climb his fence and you are trespassing. This old law written for homesteading doesn't mean squat.

I didn't reference the unlawful inclosures act, so check your facts before you make stupid statements. I'm glad you think I give stupid answers because it shows the level of your intelligence and your inability to process simple information. Your example is nothing close to the case on question, so carry on ranting about chit that is irrelevant...unless you're Dennis trying to prove a point.

Your pathetic, I was expecting you to answer for me on the fact that the act doesn't mean anything in regards to public land access and you did just that. Proved that landlocked public land can be blocked off for private use. Just like the Eaton ranch is doing. So I'm right again. Now I'm gonna wait and see if anyone can explain what I asked about in regards to closing off public land. You came in to this way too late to even matter. Plenty of people have referred to the act being the law and it's not. My point is you don't have an absolute right to access public land and you unknowingly supported me in that. Have a good night.

[full choke]

So here's an example. This is over by Ellensburg. So according to the scholars on Hunt Washington I can just walk into this public land and tell the landowner to piss off. I have a legal right to cross his land due to the Unlawful Inclosures Act... 

.

[Platensek-po]

Here's the recent amendment
§1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands
No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

I'm honestly not sure how that settles or addresses corner crossing.

Not trying to be argumentative.

That just seems to address that you can't wall off public land?

Am I missing it?

No you're not, it doesn't mean anything about this situation. It's just the only thing close to a law preventing the guy from building a fence you can't put a ladder over that people can find to justify the fence situation. But again, the Wyoming case didn't involve a fence. If it was an all encompassing law, then isn't the federal government breaking it every time they lock the doors on a public place or have a fence around a park with a curfew or a park with a gate that closes certain times of the year? Or winter range for that matter? 

Didn’t they use a ladder to cross over a fence??? It’s amazing how you continually seem to confuse public lands with private. The government entities that manage the public lands can and do absolutely control access. You cannot as a private individual prohibit others from accessing public land. As in you can’t fence off or block public land. If you own land that completely surrounds public land you can fence your land and prohibit access to it which would bar access to the public land unless through easement or air travel. At the corner crossing half the “air” is private and half is public. It’s saying that these hunters while passing through that mutually owned space committed trespass. All while crossing from public land to land.

I don't confuse public with private. I'm confused with everyone claiming this Inclosures Act protects them in some way. It absolutely doesn't. If it were true, and it makes no exception for government entities to close off public land then how can any government body close off public areas? How can they control it if this act is the law? Explain that using your super brain. What's amazing is that you claimed the fire dept and police are a socialist program! That's ridiculous.

Lolololol wow. as i stated before the fence the landowner built actually is partially on public land. So it does seem as if you are confused. i would love for you to explain how the police and fire departments are private for profit businesses. you really think that the police and fire departments are capitalist??? wow. i already explained why the government entities can close off public lands. much different than a private individual doing so. you are also confusing someone fencing off their land with someone fencing off a corner. the socialist public school system really failed with you man.

[jrebel]

Here's the recent amendment
§1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands
No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

I'm honestly not sure how that settles or addresses corner crossing.

Not trying to be argumentative.

That just seems to address that you can't wall off public land?

Am I missing it?

No you're not, it doesn't mean anything about this situation. It's just the only thing close to a law preventing the guy from building a fence you can't put a ladder over that people can find to justify the fence situation. But again, the Wyoming case didn't involve a fence. If it was an all encompassing law, then isn't the federal government breaking it every time they lock the doors on a public place or have a fence around a park with a curfew or a park with a gate that closes certain times of the year? Or winter range for that matter? 

Didn’t they use a ladder to cross over a fence??? It’s amazing how you continually seem to confuse public lands with private. The government entities that manage the public lands can and do absolutely control access. You cannot as a private individual prohibit others from accessing public land. As in you can’t fence off or block public land. If you own land that completely surrounds public land you can fence your land and prohibit access to it which would bar access to the public land unless through easement or air travel. At the corner crossing half the “air” is private and half is public. It’s saying that these hunters while passing through that mutually owned space committed trespass. All while crossing from public land to land.

I don't confuse public with private. I'm confused with everyone claiming this Inclosures Act protects them in some way. It absolutely doesn't. If it were true, and it makes no exception for government entities to close off public land then how can any government body close off public areas? How can they control it if this act is the law? Explain that using your super brain. What's amazing is that you claimed the fire dept and police are a socialist program! That's ridiculous.

Lolololol wow. as i stated before the fence the landowner built actually is partially on public land. So it does seem as if you are confused. i would love for you to explain how the police and fire departments are private for profit businesses. you really think that the police and fire departments are capitalist??? wow. i already explained why the government entities can close off public lands. much different than a private individual doing so. you are also confusing someone fencing off their land with someone fencing off a corner. the socialist public school system really failed with you man.

Platensek.....

To say fire, law, and aid (public entity) is 100% a social system is 100% false.  Even comparing it to public schools is apples to oranges.  With the exception of King County......most tax payers pay "X" cents per thousand of assessed valley for said services.  This part of it could be considered socialistic.  When that service is used (Specifically medical services which come in the form of all three (fire, medic and law (Stevens County))....they are quite often also billed for their service above and beyond.  This is both through private / state / federal insurance and actual bills to the pt needing that service.  This part of it could be considered the capitalistic side of it.....though I see how this can be confusing to to some.  These funds are considered public funds and thus have rules for how they can be spent, but non the less EMS, Fire and Law are fee for service.   If you don't believe me.....maybe call up some of these larger districts and just ask them what an ambulance ride would cost.....regardless of the fact that you pay your taxes. 

There are also private EMS, Fire and Law throughout the united states.....even in our very liberal....communistic.....socialist state of Washington.   Point being.....to call our public services socialized is not 100% true.  As stated in an earlier post.....it is possible to have a mix of multiple systems. 

Point is.....and I stated it before.....to associate public service as 100% socialist in our country is a false narrative.  If you truly want to see a socialist health system, go no further than our neighbor to the north....CANADA.  I know a few Canadians very well and they will likely tell you what they have told me....socialized medicine has it's pros and cons.  Pros being they don't have pay beyond what they pay for taxes (OHHHHH, except for medications, elective surgeries, etc, etc, etc,)....Cons their taxes are crazy high and you may have to wait a long time to actually see a physician. 

I'm telling you....your argument is as flawed as any I have seen on this sight as it pertains to public service and socialism.  Your trying to make a point that isn't there and it is not helping your argument.  At this point you are just trying to sling mud to make your point and that rarely leads to people wanting to hear your side. 

[Platensek-po]

Here's the recent amendment
§1063. Obstruction of settlement on or transit over public lands
No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing, or any other unlawful means, shall prevent or obstruct, or shall combine and confederate with others to prevent or obstruct, any person from peaceably entering upon or establishing a settlement or residence on any tract of public land subject to settlement or entry under the public land laws of the United States, or shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands: Provided, This section shall not be held to affect the right or title of persons, who have gone upon, improved, or occupied said lands under the land laws of the United States, claiming title thereto, in good faith.

I'm honestly not sure how that settles or addresses corner crossing.

Not trying to be argumentative.

That just seems to address that you can't wall off public land?

Am I missing it?

No you're not, it doesn't mean anything about this situation. It's just the only thing close to a law preventing the guy from building a fence you can't put a ladder over that people can find to justify the fence situation. But again, the Wyoming case didn't involve a fence. If it was an all encompassing law, then isn't the federal government breaking it every time they lock the doors on a public place or have a fence around a park with a curfew or a park with a gate that closes certain times of the year? Or winter range for that matter? 

Didn’t they use a ladder to cross over a fence??? It’s amazing how you continually seem to confuse public lands with private. The government entities that manage the public lands can and do absolutely control access. You cannot as a private individual prohibit others from accessing public land. As in you can’t fence off or block public land. If you own land that completely surrounds public land you can fence your land and prohibit access to it which would bar access to the public land unless through easement or air travel. At the corner crossing half the “air” is private and half is public. It’s saying that these hunters while passing through that mutually owned space committed trespass. All while crossing from public land to land.

I don't confuse public with private. I'm confused with everyone claiming this Inclosures Act protects them in some way. It absolutely doesn't. If it were true, and it makes no exception for government entities to close off public land then how can any government body close off public areas? How can they control it if this act is the law? Explain that using your super brain. What's amazing is that you claimed the fire dept and police are a socialist program! That's ridiculous.

Lolololol wow. as i stated before the fence the landowner built actually is partially on public land. So it does seem as if you are confused. i would love for you to explain how the police and fire departments are private for profit businesses. you really think that the police and fire departments are capitalist??? wow. i already explained why the government entities can close off public lands. much different than a private individual doing so. you are also confusing someone fencing off their land with someone fencing off a corner. the socialist public school system really failed with you man.

Platensek.....

To say fire, law, and aid (public entity) is 100% a social system is 100% false.  Even comparing it to public schools is apples to oranges.  With the exception of King County......most tax payers pay "X" cents per thousand of assessed valley for said services.  This part of it could be considered socialistic.  When that service is used (Specifically medical services which come in the form of all three (fire, medic and law (Stevens County))....they are quite often also billed for their service above and beyond.  This is both through private / state / federal insurance and actual bills to the pt needing that service.  This part of it could be considered the capitalistic side of it.....though I see how this can be confusing to to some.  These funds are considered public funds and thus have rules for how they can be spent, but non the less EMS, Fire and Law are fee for service.   If you don't believe me.....maybe call up some of these larger districts and just ask them what an ambulance ride would cost.....regardless of the fact that you pay your taxes. 

There are also private EMS, Fire and Law throughout the united states.....even in our very liberal....communistic.....socialist state of Washington.   Point being.....to call our public services socialized is not 100% true.  As stated in an earlier post.....it is possible to have a mix of multiple systems. 

Point is.....and I stated it before.....to associate public service as 100% socialist in our country is a false narrative.  If you truly want to see a socialist health system, go no further than our neighbor to the north....CANADA.  I know a few Canadians very well and they will likely tell you what they have told me....socialized medicine has it's pros and cons.  Pros being they don't have pay beyond what they pay for taxes (OHHHHH, except for medications, elective surgeries, etc, etc, etc,)....Cons their taxes are crazy high and you may have to wait a long time to actually see a physician. 

I'm telling you....your argument is as flawed as any I have seen on this sight as it pertains to public service and socialism.  Your trying to make a point that isn't there and it is not helping your argument.  At this point you are just trying to sling mud to make your point and that rarely leads to people wanting to hear your side.

They may not be 100% socialist in terms of the fact that they are based off of a capitalist system. A lot of private entities can and do operate within the government. However, most police and fire departments are socialist programs. They run on the basis of community service not profit. They are funded by the public and controlled by the government. To say that police and firefighters are capitalist programs??? I understand the nuance you are stating but Clearly Dennis has no clue what any of it means. Unless you are stating that police and fire departments are privately owned and run for a profit then there is no way they can be capitalist programs. They are %100 social programs. Remember that healthcare in this country is not a social program and thus emts are not generally a social program but a private one. There are some exceptions to state and federally run emt programs. I will reiterate that I understand the nuance you are stating but there is no doubt that they are social programs.

[fishngamereaper]

This morphed quickly.
I thought we where talking about corner crossing,(deemed not illegal in this case) and a frivolous lawsuit brought forth by someone with money to burn and an axe to grind...

Wait...let me check my net worth see if I'm allowed to offer my opinion on this topic...

[mcrawfordaf]

Anyone who thinks hovering above someone's land for 2 seconds to cross from public land to public land without stepping foot on the private parcel causes "damage" to said private land... well you've got a funny way of thinking. 

I'll await your lawsuit after my children hover their hands above your yard while walking down the side walk....

[OutHouse]

"You have continuously ignored the fact that no one cares about their money because the issue is about public access. Its honestly getting tiresome to hear your proclamations that the issue is other people's jealousy. Its lazy argument dude."

The start of this thread and the article posted was about monetary claims (money). Not the right to enter the public land. That was already established by the other ruling. You can go there and corner cross till your legs fall off. This is about money now. Maybe you should have actually read the article? Don't be jealous that this guy has way more hunting opportunities than you ever will... And 💰💵   After all, the jealousy makes you seem weak. 

Please keep posting your prognostications--your credibility suffers with each key stroke you put into this 

[Knocker of rocks]

Anyone who thinks hovering above someone's land for 2 seconds to cross from public land to public land without stepping foot on the private parcel causes "damage" to said private land... well you've got a funny way of thinking. 

I'll await your lawsuit after my children hover their hands above your yard while walking down the side walk....

But say I drove a hovercraft repeatedly over your lawn, but never exceeding two seconds?

But you are totally correct. This is just about airspace. Somewhere between a hovercraft and a jetliner

[jrebel]

What's the legality of shooting over someone's land??  Say in a checkerboarded example like is being discussed, a hunter shoots over a baren piece of land that is owned by a rancher and kills an animal on a public piece.  Even if they took the long way around to legally access w/o corner crossing....would that be trespassing? 

[mcrawfordaf]

What's the legality of shooting over someone's land??  Say in a checkerboarded example like is being discussed, a hunter shoots over a baren piece of land that is owned by a rancher and kills an animal on a public piece.  Even if they took the long way around to legally access w/o corner crossing....would that be trespassing?

In WY it's illegal without permission:

23-3-305. Hunting from highway; entering enclosed property without permission;
penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.

(d) No person knowingly shall fire any rifle from the enclosed lands of one person
onto or across the enclosed lands of another without the permission of both persons.

[jrebel]

I think the morphing of this thread has occurred due to the intolerance of others / all to respect peoples opinions.  You don't have to agree with everyone....but at some point, you either have to walk away or agree to disagree.  These topics very often hit close to home when it comes to public vs private land....who can afford land...how much land they can afford, etc., etc., etc.  When this happens, people start throwing out examples to make their point.  Sometimes these examples have no baring on the original debate....but rather on a premise of the original debate.   This is the morphing that has occurred....and of course the name calling usually follows closely behind. 

At the end of the day, nothing changes, people stay pissed off at each other, and the liberal internet continues to divide a bunch of people that would otherwise likely get along if they met each other in the field.   

As much as I like social media sites (this qualifies), I hate how divisive they can be.  I can see all side of this debate.  Whether it be the rich guy throwing his money around or the entitled poor person that is being taken advantage of by the "man".....your argument usually will lie with the one you associate with the most.  My reality tells me their is fault on both sides. 

Carry on.....I'm done rambling.