Post by: fireweed on August 24, 2022, 09:55:58 AM
https://wyofile.com/corner-crossers-ranch-owner-broke-federal-access-law/
Post by: OutHouse on August 24, 2022, 01:05:18 PM
Post by: fireweed on September 06, 2022, 01:20:31 PM
https://wyofile.com/ranch-owner-corner-crossing-damages-could-exceed-7m/
Post by: actionshooter on September 06, 2022, 09:32:06 PM
If anyone feels like helping these guys out... they inadvertently put their butts on the line and the right decision will help all of us down the line.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 10:15:09 AM
Check out the "damages" claim.
https://wyofile.com/ranch-owner-corner-crossing-damages-could-exceed-7m/
I have a feeling that the damages lawsuit will be thrown out instantly.
The lawsuit is based on the fact that they challenged and prevailed with the tickets they received. So the landowners claim should be with the court, which is obviously a no go.
I would not be surprised if this results in censure for the lawyer who brought the damages claim
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 10:33:13 AM
Post by: hunter399 on September 07, 2022, 10:48:22 AM
Even if I seen with my own eye.
Post by: Phillip.beaudry on September 07, 2022, 10:54:31 AM
Also I love that the ceo of the hunters thing is named land.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 11:24:23 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 07, 2022, 11:37:04 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 11:39:04 AM
Post by: MountainWalk on September 07, 2022, 11:44:51 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 11:48:00 AM
Piss on the ranch and the DA
What does the DA have to do with this? The criminal trial is over and done.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 07, 2022, 12:00:25 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on September 07, 2022, 12:06:13 PM
Because all I hear about this is that this man who has clearly worked hard for what he has and donated something like a million dollars to medical research, research that possibly saved countless lives, maybe even children with diseases, who knows. Is suddenly a bad guy because he has more money than other people, even though he clearly put the effort in to earn it, and is a jerk for something that the federal government did by creating a checkerboard of public land. Seems like everyone should be mad at the government not the guy who bought land with his hard earned money.I can understand that, maybe there should be easements at every corner when properties meet like this up against public land, like a circle of 10' or something. His donations are great but have nothing to do why people don't care for this rancher, his eagerness to keep people off the public land is what they hate.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 07, 2022, 12:07:01 PM
Piss on the ranch and the DA
What does the DA have to do with this? The criminal trial is over and done.
Right! Just people who don't have what this guy has being overly emotional about an issue that the DA stated in court filings that her decision is based on a long-held policy. “The idea that corner crossing is illegal…has been a consistent policy of the Carbon County Attorney’s office at least since 2008,” County and Prosecuting Attorney Ashley Mayfield Davis wrote. If they weren't hunters and were ANTIFA members going camping instead I get the feeling people wouldn't be as interested.
Post by: trophyhunt on September 07, 2022, 12:11:18 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 12:13:31 PM
Because all I hear about this is that this man who has clearly worked hard for what he has and donated something like a million dollars to medical research, research that possibly saved countless lives, maybe even children with diseases, who knows. Is suddenly a bad guy because he has more money than other people, even though he clearly put the effort in to earn it, and is a jerk for something that the federal government did by creating a checkerboard of public land. Seems like everyone should be mad at the government not the guy who bought land with his hard earned money.
Claiming he lost enjoyment of his land to the tune of millions because somebody invaded his portion of a 3’ square?
Post by: MountainWalk on September 07, 2022, 12:16:20 PM
Article says carbon county da or ada filed the charges. So yes, piss on him.
Post by: pickardjw on September 07, 2022, 12:17:03 PM
Did the hunters harvest anything, just curious.
If I remember correctly from when they were on the Meateater podcast, they harvested a bull/bulls in 2020 and two bulls in 2021
Post by: trophyhunt on September 07, 2022, 12:20:02 PM
So I also wonder if that spot is getting hit hard now by other hunters who can't seem to find their own spots? Since the case was thrown out, what is to stop people now from crossing and using the public land?Did the hunters harvest anything, just curious.
If I remember correctly from when they were on the Meateater podcast, they harvested a bull/bulls in 2020 and two bulls in 2021
Post by: fireweed on September 07, 2022, 12:24:23 PM
He is saying, yes, my personal ranch is more valuable if I get exclusive use of all this public land, too.
Reading the comments on the wyofile article is a real eye opener for a jury trial
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 12:39:30 PM
@knocker of rocks-
Article says carbon county da or ada filed the charges. So yes, piss on him.
That is true, but that portion is over and done with.
Post by: actionshooter on September 07, 2022, 08:15:29 PM
Because all I hear about this is that this man who has clearly worked hard for what he has and donated something like a million dollars to medical research, research that possibly saved countless lives, maybe even children with diseases, who knows. Is suddenly a bad guy because he has more money than other people, even though he clearly put the effort in to earn it, and is a jerk for something that the federal government did by creating a checkerboard of public land. Seems like everyone should be mad at the government not the guy who bought land with his hard earned money.
I don't care if this guy is Gandhi himself... if he wins, he will set the path to keep us (public landowners) off of 16 million acres of OUR land around the country.... we can be mad at the gov for creating this mess, but it was 150 years ago.... so that kinda reminds me of all this talk about slave reparations.. can you really blame someone now for what happened over a 150 years ago?
Post by: LDennis24 on September 07, 2022, 08:34:58 PM
Because all I hear about this is that this man who has clearly worked hard for what he has and donated something like a million dollars to medical research, research that possibly saved countless lives, maybe even children with diseases, who knows. Is suddenly a bad guy because he has more money than other people, even though he clearly put the effort in to earn it, and is a jerk for something that the federal government did by creating a checkerboard of public land. Seems like everyone should be mad at the government not the guy who bought land with his hard earned money.
I don't care if this guy is Gandhi himself... if he wins, he will set the path to keep us (public landowners) off of 16 million acres of OUR land around the country.... we can be mad at the gov for creating this mess, but it was 150 years ago.... so that kinda reminds me of all this talk about slave reparations.. can you really blame someone now for what happened over a 150 years ago?
No you're right, you can't blame him for what the government did 150 yrs ago. So why are people blaming the guy who didn't create the checkerboard ownership for access issues?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 07, 2022, 08:46:58 PM
Post by: dewandgin on September 07, 2022, 09:47:30 PM
You can blame him for claiming he is losing the use and enjoyment of his land to the sum of 25% of its value when in fact he is being asked to share the use of either 4.5 or 2.25 square feet of his property, or about 0.00005% of his land.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Dan-o on September 07, 2022, 09:59:50 PM
Because all I hear about this is that this man who has clearly worked hard for what he has and donated something like a million dollars to medical research, research that possibly saved countless lives, maybe even children with diseases, who knows. Is suddenly a bad guy because he has more money than other people, even though he clearly put the effort in to earn it, and is a jerk for something that the federal government did by creating a checkerboard of public land. Seems like everyone should be mad at the government not the guy who bought land with his hard earned money.
I don't care if this guy is Gandhi himself... if he wins, he will set the path to keep us (public landowners) off of 16 million acres of OUR land around the country.... we can be mad at the gov for creating this mess, but it was 150 years ago.... so that kinda reminds me of all this talk about slave reparations.. can you really blame someone now for what happened over a 150 years ago?
No you're right, you can't blame him for what the government did 150 yrs ago. So why are people blaming the guy who didn't create the checkerboard ownership for access issues?
Because he is aggressively trying to keep people off of public land so that he and only he will profit from that public land.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 07, 2022, 10:00:35 PM
Millions. From taxpayers like you and me. His claims are bs and he is throwing money at this so he can essentially purchase public land for nothing. Cause if this is upheld he will be sole beneficiary of that land that belongs to everyone. He is no dummy I’ll give him that.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 07, 2022, 10:46:33 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 07, 2022, 11:44:29 PM
There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?
You said it yourself tho. Those people have entered into agreements with the government entities entrusted to hold those lands for the public. This guy literally is just claiming this land as his own while giving nothing at all back to anyone. In fact he is trying to take even more from the public. Not even close in comparison. And by the way we influence those government entities for leases all the time, like the pebble mine and boundary waters mines. There is public input. I don’t agree with all the leases ornuses of publicnland but at least they are entrusted. This guy is making money by just putting up a fence and denying you access to what is actually yours. Where is your anger against this guy for stealing from you?
Post by: HntnFsh on September 08, 2022, 05:28:38 AM
So I also wonder if that spot is getting hit hard now by other hunters who can't seem to find their own spots? Since the case was thrown out, what is to stop people now from crossing and using the public land?Did the hunters harvest anything, just curious.
If I remember correctly from when they were on the Meateater podcast, they harvested a bull/bulls in 2020 and two bulls in 2021
Hopefully nothing is stopping anybody from using that public land that wants to. Thats the way it should be.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 08, 2022, 08:42:14 AM
Post by: grundy53 on September 08, 2022, 12:15:02 PM
There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?Most of those leases don't keep the public from using the land. Especially grazing leases.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Dan-o on September 08, 2022, 12:31:04 PM
There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?Most of those leases don't keep the public from using the land. Especially grazing leases.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
This.
Plus the fact that those people are paying to lease the land and this guy is just trying to force us off public land he has no more right to than you or I.
I hunt lots of dnr land that is leased to farmers and the dnr folks in this state have been super supportive of our right to use that land recreational.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 08, 2022, 02:44:05 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 08, 2022, 03:01:29 PM
There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?
You said it yourself tho. Those people have entered into agreements with the government entities entrusted to hold those lands for the public. This guy literally is just claiming this land as his own while giving nothing at all back to anyone. In fact he is trying to take even more from the public. Not even close in comparison. And by the way we influence those government entities for leases all the time, like the pebble mine and boundary waters mines. There is public input. I don’t agree with all the leases ornuses of publicnland but at least they are entrusted. This guy is making money by just putting up a fence and denying you access to what is actually yours. Where is your anger against this guy for stealing from you?
I agree he doesn't have the rights to the land. But I don't agree with enforcing eminent domain to allow access. I don't have a problem with him because I will never go to that spot to hunt. I'm not losing anything because I never had it in the first place in my opinion. I just get the feeling that people's comments on here are based on " This guy has lots of money and is therefore a crooked @****le." And I don't believe that to be so. Same with the argument about his land being valued at a higher price due to the public land involved. I'm not sure he can claim millions in losses. Ask any realtor about property value when it is near a park or public land or national forest. It's value goes up. People are also definitely going to pay more for a piece of property they think will give them exclusive access to some hunting land. No matter if that land is public, private, or even part of a landowners hunting club or something. So if he did this and now the ruling shows that you don't have that value in your property anymore then he will most likely be getting paid for loss of value in some form. You can even sue your neighbor for being a disgusting slob in this country, because it brings down the value of your home next door. So his claim is legit. The actual monetary sum however is probably less than what he is going for. I'm not an expert on this. I just know you can sue for it. :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on September 08, 2022, 04:15:06 PM
I don't care how much money he has. I care about him keeping people off of public land.There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?
You said it yourself tho. Those people have entered into agreements with the government entities entrusted to hold those lands for the public. This guy literally is just claiming this land as his own while giving nothing at all back to anyone. In fact he is trying to take even more from the public. Not even close in comparison. And by the way we influence those government entities for leases all the time, like the pebble mine and boundary waters mines. There is public input. I don’t agree with all the leases ornuses of publicnland but at least they are entrusted. This guy is making money by just putting up a fence and denying you access to what is actually yours. Where is your anger against this guy for stealing from you?
I agree he doesn't have the rights to the land. But I don't agree with enforcing eminent domain to allow access. I don't have a problem with him because I will never go to that spot to hunt. I'm not losing anything because I never had it in the first place in my opinion. I just get the feeling that people's comments on here are based on " This guy has lots of money and is therefore a crooked @****le." And I don't believe that to be so. Same with the argument about his land being valued at a higher price due to the public land involved. I'm not sure he can claim millions in losses. Ask any realtor about property value when it is near a park or public land or national forest. It's value goes up. People are also definitely going to pay more for a piece of property they think will give them exclusive access to some hunting land. No matter if that land is public, private, or even part of a landowners hunting club or something. So if he did this and now the ruling shows that you don't have that value in your property anymore then he will most likely be getting paid for loss of value in some form. You can even sue your neighbor for being a disgusting slob in this country, because it brings down the value of your home next door. So his claim is legit. The actual monetary sum however is probably less than what he is going for. I'm not an expert on this. I just know you can sue for it. :dunno:
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: JakeLand on September 08, 2022, 04:35:54 PM
this !! And they didn’t even step a foot on his dirt and they damaged him ?? Cmon he’s a land whore that doesn’t care plain and simple . There’s no just with him he’s just a dick simpleI don't care how much money he has. I care about him keeping people off of public land.There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?
You said it yourself tho. Those people have entered into agreements with the government entities entrusted to hold those lands for the public. This guy literally is just claiming this land as his own while giving nothing at all back to anyone. In fact he is trying to take even more from the public. Not even close in comparison. And by the way we influence those government entities for leases all the time, like the pebble mine and boundary waters mines. There is public input. I don’t agree with all the leases ornuses of publicnland but at least they are entrusted. This guy is making money by just putting up a fence and denying you access to what is actually yours. Where is your anger against this guy for stealing from you?
I agree he doesn't have the rights to the land. But I don't agree with enforcing eminent domain to allow access. I don't have a problem with him because I will never go to that spot to hunt. I'm not losing anything because I never had it in the first place in my opinion. I just get the feeling that people's comments on here are based on " This guy has lots of money and is therefore a crooked @****le." And I don't believe that to be so. Same with the argument about his land being valued at a higher price due to the public land involved. I'm not sure he can claim millions in losses. Ask any realtor about property value when it is near a park or public land or national forest. It's value goes up. People are also definitely going to pay more for a piece of property they think will give them exclusive access to some hunting land. No matter if that land is public, private, or even part of a landowners hunting club or something. So if he did this and now the ruling shows that you don't have that value in your property anymore then he will most likely be getting paid for loss of value in some form. You can even sue your neighbor for being a disgusting slob in this country, because it brings down the value of your home next door. So his claim is legit. The actual monetary sum however is probably less than what he is going for. I'm not an expert on this. I just know you can sue for it. :dunno:
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Dan-o on September 08, 2022, 05:10:44 PM
He has every right to keep us off his private property.
But in this case I wish the government would just rip off the band aid and do a mini little imminent domain on those corners.
Condemn a 15' circle and impulse then for their actual loss. Heck, take 25 square feet of their property and give them 50 square feet in return.
I know others may disagree.
I just can't see letting a few rich people control a bunch of public land.
Post by: NumaJohn on September 08, 2022, 06:54:00 PM
I'm not against him because he's rich.
He has every right to keep us off his private property.
But in this case I wish the government would just rip off the band aid and do a mini little imminent domain on those corners.
Condemn a 15' circle and impulse then for their actual loss. Heck, take 25 square feet of their property and give them 50 square feet in return.
I know others may disagree.
I just can't see letting a few rich people control a bunch of public land.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Platensek-po on September 08, 2022, 07:00:13 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 08, 2022, 07:22:23 PM
I'm not against him because he's rich.
He has every right to keep us off his private property.
But in this case I wish the government would just rip off the band aid and do a mini little imminent domain on those corners.
Condemn a 15' circle and impulse then for their actual loss. Heck, take 25 square feet of their property and give them 50 square feet in return.
I know others may disagree.
I just can't see letting a few rich people control a bunch of public land.
I’m with you on that idea, except it needs to be a square, easier to build a fence.🤣
Post by: OutHouse on September 09, 2022, 02:34:31 PM
There are a lot of people who solely benefit financially from public land. It's a right they have earned through purchasing mining claims or lease agreements for agriculture or grazing etc. So why aren't you guys going after the USDA for allowing someone to profit off of your precious public land? One person profiting off of public land when nobody else is making money from it literally happens across this entire country. Your only saying this because it's a hunting issue or what?
You said it yourself tho. Those people have entered into agreements with the government entities entrusted to hold those lands for the public. This guy literally is just claiming this land as his own while giving nothing at all back to anyone. In fact he is trying to take even more from the public. Not even close in comparison. And by the way we influence those government entities for leases all the time, like the pebble mine and boundary waters mines. There is public input. I don’t agree with all the leases ornuses of publicnland but at least they are entrusted. This guy is making money by just putting up a fence and denying you access to what is actually yours. Where is your anger against this guy for stealing from you?
I agree he doesn't have the rights to the land. But I don't agree with enforcing eminent domain to allow access. I don't have a problem with him because I will never go to that spot to hunt. I'm not losing anything because I never had it in the first place in my opinion. I just get the feeling that people's comments on here are based on " This guy has lots of money and is therefore a crooked @****le." And I don't believe that to be so. Same with the argument about his land being valued at a higher price due to the public land involved. I'm not sure he can claim millions in losses. Ask any realtor about property value when it is near a park or public land or national forest. It's value goes up. People are also definitely going to pay more for a piece of property they think will give them exclusive access to some hunting land. No matter if that land is public, private, or even part of a landowners hunting club or something. So if he did this and now the ruling shows that you don't have that value in your property anymore then he will most likely be getting paid for loss of value in some form. You can even sue your neighbor for being a disgusting slob in this country, because it brings down the value of your home next door. So his claim is legit. The actual monetary sum however is probably less than what he is going for. I'm not an expert on this. I just know you can sue for it. :dunno:
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 10, 2022, 09:18:13 AM
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. :tup:
Post by: full choke on September 10, 2022, 09:30:27 AM
"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. :tup:
.
Post by: Dan-o on September 10, 2022, 10:54:29 AM
"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. :tup:
You continue to mischaracterize what the rest of us are saying.
You can disagree with what the rest of us are saying, but your arguments are disingenuous.
It makes you seem weak. :tup:
Post by: cem3434 on September 10, 2022, 11:21:55 AM
Post by: Ocurtis on September 11, 2022, 06:51:40 AM
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!
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 09:53:25 AM
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. :dunno:
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 09:58:03 AM
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. :dunno:
So you are just straight up anti public lands. Got it.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:05:25 AM
"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. :tup:
You continue to mischaracterize what the rest of us are saying.
You can disagree with what the rest of us are saying, but your arguments are disingenuous.
It makes you seem weak. :tup:
I didn't mis characterize anything. You say the rest of us, meaning all the other comments? Well some people are posting about how much money he has. So try again. And if this isn't about money, what is it about? Not the right to access the land. That was already determined. So is it just about continual whining over the situation? My argument is genuine, maybe it's just above your comprehension. You guys focus on one particular part of someone's statement and go with it. It's called confirmation bias.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:13:46 AM
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. :dunno:
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?
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 10:20:53 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:23:57 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Mischaracterizing.... 🤔
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 10:24:09 AM
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. :dunno:
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?
No you just can’t seem to grasp that people don’t hate him because he has money, we really strongly disagree that just because he has money he can screw over the public. You seem to think that having money makes you above everyone else and should allow you to just be an ahole. It’s a strange way of thinking that only you seem to have.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 10:24:59 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Mischaracterizing.... 🤔
How? Didn’t you say that the government taking land for the public is socialism and bad?
Post by: cem3434 on September 11, 2022, 10:27:22 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on September 11, 2022, 10:34:57 AM
So now he's throwing a fit and trying the easier way in civil court by flexing his financial muscle and trying to bankrupt some hunter's from out of State...
Ya that's mature....sounds like a bully to me..
Post by: jrebel on September 11, 2022, 10:44:32 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:54:07 AM
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.
Post by: buckfvr on September 11, 2022, 10:54:40 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 10:59:02 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 11:09:19 AM
Landlocked public land should be closed land to prevent the public land private hunting/grazing conundrum. :twocents:
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. :dunno:
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 11:16:18 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 11:22:59 AM
Landlocked public land should be closed land to prevent the public land private hunting/grazing conundrum. :twocents:
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. :dunno:
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
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 11:24:16 AM
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. :beatdeadhorse:
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.
Post by: jrebel on September 11, 2022, 11:24:45 AM
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 11:25:20 AM
You understand that those hunters literally never set foot on his land right? Even he isn’t arguing thatIt 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. :beatdeadhorse:
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.
Post by: full choke on September 11, 2022, 11:27:24 AM
[
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.
Post by: cem3434 on September 11, 2022, 11:43:28 AM
You understand that those hunters literally never set foot on his land right? Even he isn’t arguing thatIt 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. :beatdeadhorse:
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.
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. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on September 11, 2022, 01:15:08 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 11, 2022, 01:27:23 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: cem3434 on September 11, 2022, 01:42:48 PM
Post by: fireweed on September 11, 2022, 01:52:38 PM
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1061
Post by: Dan-o on September 11, 2022, 02:00:38 PM
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
It should be illegal to put any law on the books that starts with a sentence that long.
I took a lunch break midway through that first sentence.
I'm gonna try to read the rest.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 11, 2022, 02:03:49 PM
I think everyone agrees I can’t drive a hovercraft over your front lawn. But airplanes can fly freely. Where does a hypothetical pole vaulter lie in all of this?
Post by: fireweed on September 11, 2022, 06:49:44 PM
§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.
Post by: Dan-o on September 11, 2022, 07:58:17 PM
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?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 11, 2022, 08:19:54 PM
Post by: outdoorsdad on September 11, 2022, 09:15:29 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 09:58:35 PM
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? :dunno:
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:06:05 PM
Post by: cem3434 on September 11, 2022, 10:28:19 PM
Ask stupid questions and you'll get stupid answers.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 11, 2022, 10:42:28 PM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:49:56 PM
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.
Post by: LDennis24 on September 11, 2022, 10:55:22 PM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: cem3434 on September 11, 2022, 11:27:53 PM
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.
Post by: huntnfmly on September 12, 2022, 05:22:03 AM
Have a good day
Post by: LDennis24 on September 12, 2022, 06:05:17 AM
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?
Post by: Mark Brenckle on September 12, 2022, 06:40:52 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on September 12, 2022, 06:43:19 AM
Post by: full choke on September 12, 2022, 07:05:06 AM
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?
.
Post by: full choke on September 12, 2022, 07:05:54 AM
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.
Post by: full choke on September 12, 2022, 07:06:32 AM
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... :tup:
.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 12, 2022, 07:48:46 AM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: jrebel on September 12, 2022, 08:11:35 AM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: Platensek-po on September 12, 2022, 08:20:15 AM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: fishngamereaper on September 12, 2022, 08:33:25 AM
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... :rolleyes:
Post by: mcrawfordaf on September 12, 2022, 08:53:17 AM
I'll await your lawsuit after my children hover their hands above your yard while walking down the side walk.... :tup:
Post by: OutHouse on September 12, 2022, 08:58:51 AM
"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. :tup:
Please keep posting your prognostications--your credibility suffers with each key stroke you put into this :tup:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 12, 2022, 09:49:33 AM
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. :twocents:
I'll await your lawsuit after my children hover their hands above your yard while walking down the side walk.... :tup:
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
Post by: jrebel on September 12, 2022, 10:23:42 AM
Post by: mcrawfordaf on September 12, 2022, 10:31:17 AM
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.
Post by: jrebel on September 12, 2022, 10:38:12 AM
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.
Post by: jrebel on September 12, 2022, 10:42:17 AM
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.
Thank you....This helps define airspace, at least in my mind. If you can't shoot across private, a hovercraft would likely be illegal. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 12, 2022, 10:48:35 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 12, 2022, 12:08:00 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 12, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 12, 2022, 12:25:42 PM
That actually does not indicate where the borders are
The stake is the marker for the corner. There are previous photos showing that you could walk in between the tposts and then he put barbed wire and chain across the corner from tpost to tpost
Post by: mcrawfordaf on September 12, 2022, 12:29:21 PM
Post by: pickardjw on September 12, 2022, 12:35:41 PM
Post by: hunter399 on September 12, 2022, 01:40:45 PM
That actually does not indicate where the borders areThat junk of pipe at the bottom of the photo,in between the T posts.
That's it ,the corner.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on September 12, 2022, 01:42:05 PM
Post by: KFhunter on September 12, 2022, 01:42:37 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on September 12, 2022, 01:47:10 PM
If I were BLM I'd tell him to remove the chain, it's corner crossing too
Thats how I see it. Looks like it’s across public land blocking access to public land. Maybe they should just have that hunter build a permanent ladder there 🤷
Post by: Dan-o on September 12, 2022, 01:47:17 PM
Another funny aspect to the whole thing, the guy that built the ladder is a professional fence builder :chuckle:
AWESOME!
Post by: cem3434 on September 12, 2022, 07:02:14 PM
Post by: hunter399 on September 12, 2022, 09:09:35 PM
I've been bitting my 😝.
Don't do stuff that you don't want done to you.
Should be the title.
Been over it,that's why I didn't post much this time on this topic.
I'm out.
Post by: HntnFsh on September 17, 2022, 03:08:23 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on September 17, 2022, 03:46:04 PM
Here is the link. https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-342-getting-busted-for-touching-air
Post by: 85yota on October 27, 2023, 01:03:03 PM
Rinella has the lawyer on