Post by: Moose Master on May 16, 2024, 09:14:29 PM
If appropriate mods merge with original posting
Post by: pd on May 17, 2024, 10:30:27 AM
"Corner crossing" is certainly not a simple issue. I suspect this will go all the way up the flag pole, and the U.S. Supreme Court will have to create a new, clear interpretation of the principles. Once again, Congress could always solve these issues, but Congress doesn't try hard enough.
Post by: OutHouse on May 17, 2024, 11:25:45 AM
Post by: ducks4days on May 17, 2024, 11:52:15 AM
I cannot fathom how any hunter would be okay with what this jerk is trying to pull off here.
Even if that hunter owned tens of thousands of acres of land that enclosed twice that area in public ground? I can understand selfishness even if I dont agree with it.
Post by: Mtnwalker on May 17, 2024, 11:55:51 AM
Post by: SuperX on May 17, 2024, 12:37:23 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 17, 2024, 12:46:23 PM
I do believe the intent of checkerboarding was originally to msintsin public access to public land.
Since then we have seen land swaps to consolidate sections of public into larger multi section blocks of public land
Post by: NumaJohn on May 17, 2024, 12:55:53 PM
Shaking my head about the possible outcome of this case.
Also, regarding land swaps, I found this Outdoor Life article an interesting read: https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/land-swap-montana-crazy-mountains/
John
Post by: ducks4days on May 17, 2024, 02:43:37 PM
If this turns out in favor of the private landowner, and we the citizens are denied access to the public land, then I guess I don't understand why the landowner (also a citizen, in addition to being a landowner) should legally enjoy sole access to that "public" entity. In other words, if the landowner wins this case, he wins WAY more than just private property rights. How is that fair?
John
The landowner has access to the private ground that precludes access to public ground by anybody without private access to the surrounding property. I dont think this principle is much different than say a lake with no public boat ramp surrounded by houses, and landowners having access to drop a boat on the lake. If you have access to the surrounding land, you have access to the lake, if you dont, you dont. Once on the lake, you can roll right up to somebody else's dock since it's "public" water.
The law is rarely fair. Its just the way things are written and sometimes enforced. That said, I think Eshelman loses this one. If the sale of these properties intended to preclude access to the surrounding properties, congress would have sold the surrounding properties with the railroad properties at half the cost and given them full rights to the plots.
The most amazing irony that could come out of this lawsuit would be congress authorizing permanent continuity between any adjoining federal public properties through eminent domain to put the issue to rest forever. But that would require them to do something that helps the average American, which means it will never happen.
Post by: NumaJohn on May 18, 2024, 01:01:47 PM
Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.
I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.
John
Post by: High Climber on May 18, 2024, 01:44:09 PM
Thanks for your reply, ducks4days.
Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.
I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.
John
Gents the lake analogy isn’t fitting here. There would have to be chunks of public and private that met at a point on the shoreline
Post by: LDennis24 on May 18, 2024, 02:26:57 PM
Post by: ducks4days on May 20, 2024, 08:40:29 AM
Thanks for your reply, ducks4days.
Your lake access analogy is interesting to consider.
I guess that situation usually results in people like me carelessly referring to that body of water as a "private" lake, whereas I never consider public land surrounded by private land to be "private." I guess it's the private access to a public resource that chaps my hide. Like you say, it's not always fair.
John
Gents the lake analogy isn’t fitting here. There would have to be chunks of public and private that met at a point on the shoreline
My analogy is only considering how private property "could" cause a landowner to enjoy sole access to a public resource, to answer NumaJohn's specific question. This is the mechanism that allows it. You are right, and I agree, the argument being made in this corner crossing case has different merits and I dont believe it is a valid legal argument that adjoining corners of private property work the same way.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 20, 2024, 08:58:40 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2024, 09:18:07 AM
I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there. Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.The gov't won't have to do anything. Landowners can contact law enforcement if somebody engages in illegal activity...no different than today. :twocents:
Post by: LDennis24 on May 20, 2024, 10:37:48 AM
I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there. Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.The gov't won't have to do anything. Landowners can contact law enforcement if somebody engages in illegal activity...no different than today. :twocents:
Yeah part of the discussion is that its not doing any good to contact law enforcement
Post by: Rainier10 on May 21, 2024, 02:13:47 PM
Probably right. It works so well to just contact law enforcement. Private property owners just get screwed again.I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there. Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.The gov't won't have to do anything. Landowners can contact law enforcement if somebody engages in illegal activity...no different than today. :twocents:
Post by: Platensek-po on May 21, 2024, 03:28:41 PM
I think the government is going to have to step in and pay for a wider easement. If they say you can step over the corner someone will ride an ebike over the corner, then a motorcycle, then a quad, then a side by side, then a jeep and finally drag a travel trailer through there. Probably all illegal actions but it’s what happens. I’ve seen it all over the colockum.The gov't won't have to do anything. Landowners can contact law enforcement if somebody engages in illegal activity...no different than today. :twocents:
Yeah part of the discussion is that its not doing any good to contact law enforcement
That’s not problem with corner crossing tho. That’s a problem with law enforcement in general. The point of corner crossing is that no contact is made with private property beyond airspace. Already trespassing can’t be enforced by Leo and corner crossing isn’t trespassing. The gov doesn’t have to provide easements for motorized vehicles. They can just rule that corner crossing without setting foot on private property isn’t trespassing and the end.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 21, 2024, 08:34:53 PM
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2024, 09:00:50 PM
But it won’t be stepping across the corner.Let's not obfuscate trespass issues with what's going on re: this corner crossing case. Eshelman is not worried about a hunter inadvertently touching a foot on his rangeland...he's hellbent on blocking access to thousands of public acres so he can keep them all to himself.
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Yes, some hunters are lazy trespassers. Some landowners are greedy, selfish, entitled whiners who illegally block roads, post public lands, and intimidate/threaten lawful public land users...none of those bad apples on either side has any real relevance to the core issue of corner crossing.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 21, 2024, 09:16:01 PM
Post by: LDennis24 on May 21, 2024, 09:16:40 PM
Post by: Platensek-po on May 21, 2024, 10:53:55 PM
But it won’t be stepping across the corner.
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Then again that’s a separate issue. That’s actually trespassing. If people are driving across the corner they aren’t corner crossing and if they are corner crossing they aren’t trespassing. That’s like saying no one should be able to drive because people will speed when there aren’t cops around or won’t obey stop signs. Maybe people shouldn’t own guns because some people will use them to commit crimes or murder. Saying that everyone who corner crosses is going to trespass makes you sound exactly like the people who make those kinds of arguments. Dealing with enforcement of trespassing laws is a completely separate issue from corner crossing.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on May 21, 2024, 11:20:07 PM
:yeah:But it won’t be stepping across the corner.
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Then again that’s a separate issue. That’s actually trespassing. If people are driving across the corner they aren’t corner crossing and if they are corner crossing they aren’t trespassing. That’s like saying no one should be able to drive because people will speed when there aren’t cops around or won’t obey stop signs. Maybe people shouldn’t own guns because some people will use them to commit crimes or murder. Saying that everyone who corner crosses is going to trespass makes you sound exactly like the people who make those kinds of arguments. Dealing with enforcement of trespassing laws is a completely separate issue from corner crossing.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 21, 2024, 11:50:50 PM
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 06:09:18 AM
I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on May 22, 2024, 06:10:04 AM
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 06:17:23 AM
But it won’t be stepping across the corner.
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Then again that’s a separate issue. That’s actually trespassing. If people are driving across the corner they aren’t corner crossing and if they are corner crossing they aren’t trespassing. That’s like saying no one should be able to drive because people will speed when there aren’t cops around or won’t obey stop signs. Maybe people shouldn’t own guns because some people will use them to commit crimes or murder. Saying that everyone who corner crosses is going to trespass makes you sound exactly like the people who make those kinds of arguments. Dealing with enforcement of trespassing laws is a completely separate issue from corner crossing.
:yeah:
Post by: Feathernfurr on May 22, 2024, 06:22:18 AM
Now if you’re talking someone that has a 100 year forest service cabin lease, sure, their yard is their yard and no one else’s.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 22, 2024, 07:34:31 AM
I think you should be able to corner cross. I think that was the original intent of the checker board. I also think when people know they can do it most are going to bend the rules and not just step across, they will cut corners, they will ride quads. It’s going to get abused and there is no enforcement or prosecution for abuse. That needs to be addressed also,But it won’t be stepping across the corner.
Many hunters are lazy. I’ll just cut the corner. Now that I have an elk down I need a game cart, quad, side by side, jeep. It never ends.
Then again that’s a separate issue. That’s actually trespassing. If people are driving across the corner they aren’t corner crossing and if they are corner crossing they aren’t trespassing. That’s like saying no one should be able to drive because people will speed when there aren’t cops around or won’t obey stop signs. Maybe people shouldn’t own guns because some people will use them to commit crimes or murder. Saying that everyone who corner crosses is going to trespass makes you sound exactly like the people who make those kinds of arguments. Dealing with enforcement of trespassing laws is a completely separate issue from corner crossing.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 07:56:43 AM
I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 08:04:01 AM
I’d argue against that lease idea as well. I will fight tooth and nail that cattle grazing leases are far more beneficial for cattle farmers and detrimental to public land in a lot of places. If that’s your theory, then I can go pay cents on the acre for grazing right, turn out no cattle, and treat it as my private hunting land. That’s just plain silly.
Now if you’re talking someone that has a 100 year forest service cabin lease, sure, their yard is their yard and no one else’s.
I wasn't serious about the theoretical lease of hunting rights. But if you have a grazing lease that gives you exclusive rights for grazing. So that shows that peoples arguments against exclusive use of public land for something is meaningless. You can buy exclusive rights through leases etc.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 22, 2024, 08:07:08 AM
Or maybe don't buy prime hunting propertyadjacent to any sort of public groundif you don't want to deal with the issues caused :dunno:
Fixed it for you. :tup: as a guy who owns a ton of private property but hunts public property this is the best advice I can give everyone. Don’t buy private property in prime hunting areas.
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 08:08:09 AM
I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
It's not my feelings, it's a judge's ruling.
You'll have to fill me in on the back country trash debate, doesn't sound familiar to me :dunno: I'll wait
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 08:09:51 AM
I’d argue against that lease idea as well. I will fight tooth and nail that cattle grazing leases are far more beneficial for cattle farmers and detrimental to public land in a lot of places. If that’s your theory, then I can go pay cents on the acre for grazing right, turn out no cattle, and treat it as my private hunting land. That’s just plain silly.
Now if you’re talking someone that has a 100 year forest service cabin lease, sure, their yard is their yard and no one else’s.
I wasn't serious about the theoretical lease of hunting rights. But if you have a grazing lease that gives you exclusive rights for grazing. So that shows that peoples arguments against exclusive use of public land for something is meaningless. You can buy exclusive rights through leases etc.
But it only gives you exclusive use for a period of time and most grazing leases don’t exclude the ability of the public to access the land. It just means I can’t graze cattle on it either. This is again a separate issue from corner crossing.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 08:15:20 AM
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from public land to public land at a 4 way corner on a checkerboard pattern of land. The key is that at no point do you make physical contact with the private land. It’s not a feeling it’s a decision made by a federal judge and also a jury of 12. Stating that stepping from public land to public land is the same as driving across someone’s property is ridiculous. I understand your concerns with it and they may be valid. But the same thing could be said about any activity. Will there be some people who abuse or try to use it as an excuse. Of course. Does that mean we take the right to legally access public land away from everyone? Do you think that because some people use guns for murder or crime that no one should have the right to own a gun? That’s the logic you are using here.I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 22, 2024, 08:17:02 AM
Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things.If you want to invoke discussion about 'an honest man's way of doing things' - lets start with how honest it is for the landowner in this case to block access to thousands of acres, threaten and intimidate public hunters, and coerce a sham prosecution attempt.
Also - you note 'one judge in Wyoming' made this ruling. The quote below from the senior judge in the 10th circuit who heard the appeal should send shivers down your spine :chuckle:
“If you would ask Congress,” Ebel said, “Do you really intend to give [the public] an illusory right … because the railroads could block out almost all the access … I have no doubt how they would have answered that question.”
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 08:24:06 AM
Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things.If you want to invoke discussion about 'an honest man's way of doing things' - lets start with how honest it is for the landowner in this case to block access to thousands of acres, threaten and intimidate public hunters, and coerce a sham prosecution attempt.
Also - you note 'one judge in Wyoming' made this ruling. The quote below from the senior judge in the 10th circuit who heard the appeal should send shivers down your spine :chuckle:
“If you would ask Congress,” Ebel said, “Do you really intend to give [the public] an illusory right … because the railroads could block out almost all the access … I have no doubt how they would have answered that question.”
Actually if you know your history and knew how powerful the railroad was in that time, they most likely ran the government and had everyone in their pockets. Look up J.P. Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller... they had the deepest pockets so they could very well of had the intentions of taking all that land for the railroad. Once again, your talking about one guys opinion. Just cuz he's a senior judge doesn't make him right! :dunno:
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 08:35:14 AM
Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things.If you want to invoke discussion about 'an honest man's way of doing things' - lets start with how honest it is for the landowner in this case to block access to thousands of acres, threaten and intimidate public hunters, and coerce a sham prosecution attempt.
Also - you note 'one judge in Wyoming' made this ruling. The quote below from the senior judge in the 10th circuit who heard the appeal should send shivers down your spine :chuckle:
“If you would ask Congress,” Ebel said, “Do you really intend to give [the public] an illusory right … because the railroads could block out almost all the access … I have no doubt how they would have answered that question.”
Actually if you know your history and knew how powerful the railroad was in that time, they most likely ran the government and had everyone in their pockets. Look up J.P. Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller... they had the deepest pockets so they could very well of had the intentions of taking all that land for the railroad. Once again, your talking about one guys opinion. Just cuz he's a senior judge doesn't make him right! :dunno:
So you don’t agree with the rulings of judges on the 2nd amendment? The same principle applies here. Remember corner crossing is the act of stepping from public to public. Anything else is still trespassing. All that was ruled was that if you do not step on or go across private land while going across a corner from public to public it’s not trespassing. That’s not a “feeling” it’s a ruling by a judge and a jury.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 08:37:36 AM
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from public land to public land at a 4 way corner on a checkerboard pattern of land. The key is that at no point do you make physical contact with the private land. It’s not a feeling it’s a decision made by a federal judge and also a jury of 12. Stating that stepping from public land to public land is the same as driving across someone’s property is ridiculous. I understand your concerns with it and they may be valid. But the same thing could be said about any activity. Will there be some people who abuse or try to use it as an excuse. Of course. Does that mean we take the right to legally access public land away from everyone? Do you think that because some people use guns for murder or crime that no one should have the right to own a gun? That’s the logic you are using here.I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
Well down on East Sprague by Sonnebergs Deli and the Hells Angel's clubhouse, corner crossing is when a new girl moves onto your block and you have to tell her to beat it or get stabbed. You need to make some money... :dunno:
I may have spent some time down on East Sprague hauling ammo cans and got the Intel from the local pimp. So they see it differently too. :chuckle:
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 08:39:26 AM
I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
It's not my feelings, it's a judge's ruling.
You'll have to fill me in on the back country trash debate, doesn't sound familiar to me :dunno: I'll wait
Still waiting...
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 08:43:16 AM
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from public land to public land at a 4 way corner on a checkerboard pattern of land. The key is that at no point do you make physical contact with the private land. It’s not a feeling it’s a decision made by a federal judge and also a jury of 12. Stating that stepping from public land to public land is the same as driving across someone’s property is ridiculous. I understand your concerns with it and they may be valid. But the same thing could be said about any activity. Will there be some people who abuse or try to use it as an excuse. Of course. Does that mean we take the right to legally access public land away from everyone? Do you think that because some people use guns for murder or crime that no one should have the right to own a gun? That’s the logic you are using here.I hunt a piece of property that has a short cut by the corner where people constantly, and I mean every single time, cut through private property to get there quicker and then say "oh well, I didnt hurt anything, no damage done" and take off cuz the LEO won't come out. So it's still a problem with corner crossing.
That's not corner crossing, that's trespassing. Stepping from public to private, no matter how small = trespassing. Stepping from public to public = corner crossing. Due to your personal feelings on the matter you seem to intentionally abuse the two, or at least incorrectly use them interchangeably.
As for your real world experiences on here, that can be applied to anything. There's good deeds, there's bad deeds. If you get enough people together they've experienced them all within that group. Doesn't mean everyone is bad or everyone is good. But you had constantly said people are bad and will do whatever they can get away with. We all know your feelings very well on this, doesn't make them right.
It doesn't make your feelings right either. You and Platnsek-po just take issue with my posts because you want to personally define a term like corner crossing. "Corner crossing means legally entering public land" no it doesn't, its a generic term for crossing any corner of land to another. Just because a judge in Wyoming ruled in favor of a few guys who did it doesn't make it right either. You can argue in favor of it all you want. Do you believe OJ Simpson was innocent? Quit trying to make it sound like it's an honest man's way of doing things. Your the same guy who argued that people who take the time to go into the ba country don't leave trash behind aren't you? And I immediately found you an article about backcountry horsemen in Wyoming bringing out hundreds of pounds of trash that lazy people left out in the wilderness. Miles from the trailhead. Because the fact is that alot of people get tired enough to say, F it, I'm taking the shortcut. And it will get abused. Can you or Platensek-po give me the legal definition of corner crossing?
Well down on East Sprague by Sonnebergs Deli and the Hells Angel's clubhouse, corner crossing is when a new girl moves onto your block and you have to tell her to beat it or get stabbed. You need to make some money... :dunno:
I may have spent some time down on East Sprague hauling ammo cans and got the Intel from the local pimp. So they see it differently too. :chuckle:
I’m getting a better understanding of where the confusion is coming from then
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 08:46:33 AM
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 08:53:15 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
I see, you just like to toss out statements about people that aren't correct, then run away. Your typical MO.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 08:58:49 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
But a judge ruled on what the 2nd amendment means just like with corner crossing. Your affiliation with criminal elements and their definitions of things don’t apply here. Corner crossing has a definition in this case and was ruled as a legal form of access to public land. Regardless of your feelings on it. I provided it to you and you started talking about your dealings with pimps and biker gangs :dunno:
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 09:14:12 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
I see, you just like to toss out statements about people that aren't correct, then run away. Your typical MO.
I never run away, it may not have been you who said it. It may have been Platnsek-po. I'll find it later. I work on my own schedule.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 09:25:07 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
But a judge ruled on what the 2nd amendment means just like with corner crossing. Your affiliation with criminal elements and their definitions of things don’t apply here. Corner crossing has a definition in this case and was ruled as a legal form of access to public land. Regardless of your feelings on it. I provided it to you and you started talking about your dealings with pimps and biker gangs :dunno:
I never said I was affiliated with any biker gangs or pimps. I said I was hauling ammo cans. I just said that's what's in that neighborhood. The judge ruled that it was OK to cross the private land in corners to access public land and I believe that is a violation of property rights. I don't care what that judge says. Your argument about judges rulings can apply to a thousand other issues as well. Do you agree with all of them? No. The judge also ruled that it may still be a trespass but that Wyoming fish and game cannot enforce it. They have to call the local sheriff. So that's where it goes down the toilet. People are going to abuse it because the sheriff will not show up in time and it won't matter enough because the landowner cannot show "damages" :dunno:
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 09:38:54 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
But a judge ruled on what the 2nd amendment means just like with corner crossing. Your affiliation with criminal elements and their definitions of things don’t apply here. Corner crossing has a definition in this case and was ruled as a legal form of access to public land. Regardless of your feelings on it. I provided it to you and you started talking about your dealings with pimps and biker gangs :dunno:
I never said I was affiliated with any biker gangs or pimps. I said I was hauling ammo cans. I just said that's what's in that neighborhood. The judge ruled that it was OK to cross the private land in corners to access public land and I believe that is a violation of property rights. I don't care what that judge says. Your argument about judges rulings can apply to a thousand other issues as well. Do you agree with all of them? No. The judge also ruled that it may still be a trespass but that Wyoming fish and game cannot enforce it. They have to call the local sheriff. So that's where it goes down the toilet. People are going to abuse it because the sheriff will not show up in time and it won't matter enough because the landowner cannot show "damages" :dunno:
Please show where the judge said it may still be trespassing but that they should call the sheriff? You do realize that the sheriff actually did show up in this case? Whether or not I agree with them doesn’t make them a legal ruling. You said it’s about our feelings. It’s not. It’s a legal ruling on a legal matter. You also said you got the definitions of corner crossing from a pimp. Meaning you spent time talking with someone who trafficked people. You should read on what the ruling actually was not what you learned on the street corner. It was ruled that the hunters when crossing from public land to public land without touching private property did not trespass. Doesn’t matter how you feel about it. You keep moving the goal posts and trying to attack people but can’t seem to separate what corner crossing is from trespassing.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 09:41:24 AM
Corner crossings not in the Second Amendment though? 🤔 Keep waiting, just stare at the screen all day Taco. Don't forget to refresh the page though. I never said take away all public access rights either or even brought up gun ownership.
I see, you just like to toss out statements about people that aren't correct, then run away. Your typical MO.
I never run away, it may not have been you who said it. It may have been Platnsek-po. I'll find it later. I work on my own schedule.
I can guarantee you I have never stated that people who go into the backcountry don’t litter. Lolololol. Literally just got back from a backcountry rafting trip where every campsite had white flowers. There will always be people who abuse anything. Your issue is with enforcement.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 09:41:57 AM
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 09:48:00 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 09:53:09 AM
It was an opinion piece from the AG in Wyoming back in 2004 from the first corner crossing case. That's what created the issue of having to call the sheriff. That's why the sheriff had to be called in for this case. That's why it was hard to enforce the trespassing issue. That's why people will push the boundary.
That’s your feelings on it. Pushing the boundary has nothing to do with this. Again your issue is with the enforcement of laws already in place and has nothing to do with corner crossing.
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 10:31:18 AM
It wasn't either one of you who brought up the trash left behind. Here's a piece of candy. 🍬
That's not the first time, probably won't be the last.
Anyway, the ruling doesn't affect my "feelings" (not to be confused with belief) either way. The public land I hunt doesn't have private anywhere near it. No skin in the game. But don't believe private ownership trumps public. Don't step on private, don't trespass, have at the public :tup:
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 11:03:25 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 11:06:02 AM
AG opinion from 2004Cool. Now share where the judge said it’s probably trespassing and needs to be dealt with by the sheriff.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 22, 2024, 11:16:53 AM
The attorney general says in their opinion it may be something that needs to be referred to the sheriff or AG’s office.AG opinion from 2004Cool. Now share where the judge said it’s probably trespassing and needs to be dealt with by the sheriff.
Post by: Taco280AI on May 22, 2024, 11:25:16 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 11:27:02 AM
The attorney general says in their opinion it may be something that needs to be referred to the sheriff or AG’s office.AG opinion from 2004Cool. Now share where the judge said it’s probably trespassing and needs to be dealt with by the sheriff.
That’s very different from saying that the judge who made the ruling stated that. I understand that 20yrs ago the ag stated the sheriff should be involved. In this case they were called out multiple times. Dennis said the judge said it could still be trespassing. Putting a 20yr old opinion piece that was done before this ruling means absolutely nothing. It is has no been ruled as a legal method of access to public land and found not be trespassing by jury. Now we have to wait to see what the next level of judgement finds. It’s true it could still be overturned but hopefully not.
Post by: LDennis24 on May 22, 2024, 11:58:20 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 12:44:02 PM
Corner crossing perpetuates bad behavior in some people. That's it. Some will do it right, some won't. It doesn't matter if a few dozen people decided it's not illegal. It will just create more issues with landowners and hunters. I don't care what your opinion is anymore. I know it to be true. There is a direct correlation to people believing they are allowed to access public land no matter what, such as corner crossing and trespassing and property damage. Your opinion is nonsense. :hello:
lol. Only a sith deals in absolutes. Nobody is saying that there should be access to public land no matter what. You sound like a liberal talking about guns. “There is a direct correlation to people believing they have a right to own guns and gun violence, crime and theft.” It’s a silly argument and one that holds no water thankfully. It’s not my opinion but that of a judge and jury. Too bad for you but great for the public.
Post by: HighGrouseHunt on May 22, 2024, 12:52:28 PM
I tend to think that clarity in corner crossing is only going to reduce the negative interactions between landowners and public land hunters. The less ambiguity there is, the less there is for either party to get worked up about. The problems come when both parties think they are “right” but no one in the legal system steps in to clarify the issue.
When law enforcement just ignores the issue, it pisses off the landowner, and rightly so. When there is a legal sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of hunters who believe they should be able to access public Lands if they can do so without making any physical contact with any private land, that infuriates many hunters (myself included). If corner crossing were to become “legal” I could see the types of hunters engaging in that act changing significantly. For arguments sake, maybe in this current state of legal limbo it truly is just a bunch of “bad apples” now. If it becomes legal, I image the ratio of conscientious of hunters doing it is going to increase significantly. Maybe those good guys start getting pissed at the cheaters too, and calling them in as well now.🤷
PS. Purely out of curiosity, in the Rock Lake example, if a private landowner allows the public to launch their boats from private property onto public water, and there are a couple hundred acres of BLM land down the lake that would otherwise be 100% inaccessible (even through corner crossing), is it OK to pull up on and recreate on those public lands? It seems like in the absence of that access point, all of the landowners on the lake would have enjoyed exclusive access to those lands.
My gut says it's totally fine to recreate on them, but given the statement that “it’s all Private I might be off base.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 22, 2024, 01:10:10 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 22, 2024, 01:33:03 PM
And also to be clear enforcement isn’t going to do anything about any bending of the rule.
Post by: ducks4days on May 22, 2024, 01:41:00 PM
Corner crossing perpetuates bad behavior in some people. That's it. Some will do it right, some won't. It doesn't matter if a few dozen people decided it's not illegal. It will just create more issues with landowners and hunters. I don't care what your opinion is anymore. I know it to be true. There is a direct correlation to people believing they are allowed to access public land no matter what, such as corner crossing and trespassing and property damage. Your opinion is nonsense. :hello:
Fewer restrictions to firearms increases firearm crime. It doesnt matter if a minority of people decide the freedom is worth it. It will just create more death and injury. I dont care what your opinion is anymore. I know it to be true. There is a direct correlation between people believing they are allowed to access guns no matter what, and death and other violent crimes. Your opinion is nonsense.
In case it isnt obvious, I am being facetious. The flip flopping of logic based on whatever pre-held beliefs are had is just dumb. We shouldnt blanket punish the general public to discourage the crimes of a select few criminals, even if there is a proven correlation (which has not been proven, its just your belief). Like Platensek said, you sound a lot like a Liberal talking about guns, which I guess goes to show people nowadays have a lot more in common than they think.
Post by: chukardogs on May 22, 2024, 03:30:34 PM
FWIW, as far as cattle grazing rights go, I've hunted the last 32 years on forest service land that have cattle grazing all over it. As far as I know, if a rancher has a forest service cow/calf grazing permit/lease, the only right he or she has is that his or her cattle can graze on that land. He or she doesn't have any other rights regarding or involving that land use. If a person has a mineral claim on public land, they have no other rights beyond the minerals on or under that land.
I suppose if a person leases a piece of private land, the leasee would have the same rights as the property owner as long as the actual owner doesn't have any issues with how the land is being used. I actually know a few people that would give a lease on a piece of land for grazing and have an absolute caniption fit if they found out it was being used for hunting instead. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that when leasing land, the use would or could be stipulated on the lease.
The fact is, American citizens pay taxes and have rights. Those taxes allow those citizens to use public land within the confines of the laws that govern that land. No one should be able to stop any law abiding, tax paying citizen from gaining access to that land. The Laws need to be changed or added to so those rights are cemented for the future generations of any group of society that wants to use that land. If placing easements on such properties that block the public from their land is what is needed so be it, it's time!