Update on Wyoming corner crossing

[Moose Master]

https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_87ca8a43-ca68-5546-be3f-69e2b578c08c.html

If appropriate mods merge with original posting

[pd]

For a local newspaper, this was actually a very well written summary of the many arguments made in the courtroom.

"Corner crossing" is certainly not a simple issue.  I suspect this will go all the way up the flag pole, and the U.S. Supreme Court will have to create a new, clear interpretation of the principles.  Once again, Congress could always solve these issues, but Congress doesn't try hard enough. 

[OutHouse]

I cannot fathom how any hunter would be okay with what this jerk is trying to pull off here.

[ducks4days]

I cannot fathom how any hunter would be okay with what this jerk is trying to pull off here.

Even if that hunter owned tens of thousands of acres of land that enclosed twice that area in public ground? I can understand selfishness even if I dont agree with it.

[Mtnwalker]

I'm just curious how the rest of the ranching community feels about Mr. Eshelman at this point. Do they all get to sue him when everybody's property value goes down? 

[SuperX]

even with a conservative majority on the court, it isn't clear if big money (donors) / big business, or hunters are ultimately the GOP demographic they will serve

[Rainier10]

In the end I think this is going to require a legal easement and for the easement to be clearly marked so it can be enforced. That of course will bring the property owner back the same issue of lack of enforcement and lack of prosecution.

I do believe the intent of checkerboarding was originally to msintsin public access to public land.

Since then we have seen land swaps to consolidate sections of public into larger multi section blocks of public land

[NumaJohn]

If this turns out in favor of the private landowner, and we the citizens are denied access to the public land, then I guess I don't understand why the landowner (also a citizen, in addition to being a landowner) should legally enjoy sole access to that "public" entity. In other words, if the landowner wins this case, he wins WAY more than just private property rights. How is that fair?

Shaking my head about the possible outcome of this case.

Also, regarding land swaps, I found this Outdoor Life article an interesting read: https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/land-swap-montana-crazy-mountains/

John

[ducks4days]

If this turns out in favor of the private landowner, and we the citizens are denied access to the public land, then I guess I don't understand why the landowner (also a citizen, in addition to being a landowner) should legally enjoy sole access to that "public" entity. In other words, if the landowner wins this case, he wins WAY more than just private property rights. How is that fair?

John

The landowner has access to the private ground that precludes access to public ground by anybody without private access to the surrounding property. I dont think this principle is much different than say a lake with no public boat ramp surrounded by houses, and landowners having access to drop a boat on the lake. If you have access to the surrounding land, you have access to the lake, if you dont, you dont. Once on the lake, you can roll right up to somebody else's dock since it's "public" water.

The law is rarely fair. Its just the way things are written and sometimes enforced. That said, I think Eshelman loses this one. If the sale of these properties intended to preclude access to the surrounding properties, congress would have sold the surrounding properties with the railroad properties at half the cost and given them full rights to the plots.

The most amazing irony that could come out of this lawsuit would be congress authorizing permanent continuity between any adjoining federal public properties through eminent domain to put the issue to rest forever. But that would require them to do something that helps the average American, which means it will never happen.

[NumaJohn]

Thanks for your reply, ducks4days.

Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.

I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.

John

[High Climber]

Thanks for your reply, ducks4days.

Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.

I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.

John

Gents the lake analogy isn’t fitting here. There would have to be chunks of public and private that met at a point on the shoreline

[LDennis24]

Some lakes are private, some lakes and bodies of water do not have a high water mark therefore you are not allowed to bring your boat to shore except in the designated public area. I know this for a fact as I have access to land on Rock Lake in Whitman County and it is a private lake without any public land accessible from a roadway.  The Bailey family has a lease agreement with the WDFW to allow access at the foot of the lake near the bridge. There is a vault toilet but it is still private land. When they withdraw the lease agreement your only access would be to drop off the edge of the bridge abutment with a canoe or kayak etc. The game warden and sheriff have confirmed this many times with people who want to argue they can run their boat to shore on the private beach we lease. People sure feel entitled to doing whatever they want though.

[ducks4days]

Thanks for your reply, ducks4days.

Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.

I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.

John

Gents the lake analogy isn’t fitting here. There would have to be chunks of public and private that met at a point on the shoreline

My analogy is only considering how private property "could" cause a landowner to enjoy sole access to a public resource, to answer NumaJohn's specific question. This is the mechanism that allows it. You are right, and I agree, the argument being made in this corner crossing case has different merits and I dont believe it is a valid legal argument that adjoining corners of private property work the same way.

[Rainier10]

I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there.  Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.

[idahohuntr]

I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there.  Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.

The gov't won't have to do anything.  Landowners can contact law enforcement if somebody engages in illegal activity...no different than today.