The way I see it is that the state should make it clear that corner crossing are either legal or illegal.
If legal, then those corners SHOULD always be clearly and permanently marked. If the private landowner/s are fenced, then the state should construct a crossing over that corner where the fence is.

This is not rocket science the way I see it at all.

If it is public land that there damn sure should be access to that land.

Does Wy have a regulation on fence heights? Seems like the landowner could build a 20' tall fence on his property and that would discourage the use of a ladder.

I see it from both sides, and lean towards the hunters for the most part. I have land on a State Waterway and occasionally get people fishing near the line. I really don't have an issue with it, nothing but water moccasins and turtles, but they do leave trash sometimes which can be an issue.

Retrieval is in question on a section? 640 acres? I mean there are plenty of animals that CAN and DO run further than that, but I would think hunting 640 acres is plenty ethical

no but a section out west in general hunts alot less then a section in TX. You may be land locked on all 4 sides with no fences for reference. If that animal makes it a foot over the property line, there is a chance are you arent getting permission to retrieve it. Thats assuming its even a whole section of public. Land cover dictates huntability. Typically it's alot sparser out there.

As far as ethics in this specific case where a LO is now even more fired up, there is no way I'm messing with any of it. No app is currently accurate enough to assist you with zero chance of trespass. So ya I would say hunting sparse land, with little to no visual references to where you have zero chance of retrieval and knowing that land owner is looking to take you to jail…could border on my ethics in terms of retrieval .

I dont hold any one else to my ethics, but I can say I’ve seen arrogance bit people in the [censored] when they found out they committed felony trespass because they couldnt get a hold of an Indian warden, didnt call Indian warden, or warden simply took to long so they couldnt retrieve their pronghorn with in editable time frame.

Retrieval is in question on a section? 640 acres? I mean there are plenty of animals that CAN and DO run further than that, but I would think hunting 640 acres is plenty ethical
[/quote]

no but a section out west in general hunts alot less then a section in TX. You may be land locked on all 4 sides with no fences for reference. If that animal makes it a foot over the property line, there is a chance are you arent getting permission to retrieve it. Thats assuming its even a whole section of public. Land cover dictates huntability. Typically it's alot sparser out there.

As far as ethics in this specific case where a LO is now even more fired up, there is no way I'm messing with any of it. No app is currently accurate enough to assist you with zero chance of trespass. So ya I would say hunting sparse land, with little to no visual references to where you have zero chance of retrieval and knowing that land owner is looking to take you to jail…could border on my ethics in terms of retrieval .

I dont hold any one else to my ethics, but I can say I’ve seen arrogance bit people in the [censored] when they found out they committed felony trespass because they couldnt get a hold of an Indian warden, didnt call Indian warden, or warden simply took to long so they couldnt retrieve their pronghorn with in editable time frame.




[/quote]

I appreciate the response. Definitely something to think about. I am just starting to dip my toes in figuring out how to hunt western states so this is good info.

Correct ruling.

Sounds like to me that the landowners were essentially taking advantage of the land-locked public property and were upset that someone else accessed it.

That’s possible but condemning landowners that you don’t know.

I'm certainly not a regular contributor her but this argument sound A LOT like the democratic argument for gun control. Rather than punishing the few that cause the problems let's punish all the law abiding hunters by not allowing access. Sounds really similar to let's not worry about punishing the folks who commit crimes with firearms, lets punish all the law-abiding gun owners by outlawing guns.

Gun rights is a constitutional right. Corner crossing is an individual state law involving air space ownership.

Not even remotely similar. Airspace also = Drones, bullets, arrows, low flying aircraft… these are all private space issues that arent just unique to big land owners but home and private property. Some States needed to define their laws better, If wy had we wouldnt having the WY case to begin with.

As far as the actions of a few, I have land in a Public Hunter walk-in private access program that most states have. I also have land thats being taken out of the program due to issues. I still have some land in the program, but why should I loose income due to public hunters pissing off my farmer or lessee ? if its not worth the hassle for his discounted lease, he is gone, and my income gets cut significantly. Actions of a few have a profound effect on private property access and Laws.

I hunt public every year, You think I want to loose access? No, I just understand and see both sides.

no but a section out west in general hunts alot less then a section in TX. You may be land locked on all 4 sides with no fences for reference. If that animal makes it a foot over the property line, there is a chance are you arent getting permission to retrieve it. Thats assuming its even a whole section of public. Land cover dictates huntability. Typically it's alot sparser out there.

As far as ethics in this specific case where a LO is now even more fired up, there is no way I'm messing with any of it. No app is currently accurate enough to assist you with zero chance of trespass. So ya I would say hunting sparse land, with little to no visual references to where you have zero chance of retrieval and knowing that land owner is looking to take you to jail…could border on my ethics in terms of retrieval .

I dont hold any one else to my ethics, but I can say I’ve seen arrogance bit people in the [censored] when they found out they committed felony trespass because they couldnt get a hold of an Indian warden, didnt call Indian warden, or warden simply took to long so they couldnt retrieve their pronghorn with in editable time frame.




[/quote]

I appreciate the response. Definitely something to think about. I am just starting to dip my toes in figuring out how to hunt western states so this is good info. [/quote]

Dont be scared to knock on doors and ask permission to at-least cross. You would be shocked what doors that might open up. Alot of LO’s are way more open mind when you put forth a genuine effort

The attorney who represented one of the hunters was on the MeatEater podcast this week, pretty interesting: https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/mep488-ryansemerad

Yep. I just dropped 13 waypoints in my Garmin GPS for an upcoming javelina hunt. I am sitting on my couch in Amarillo and the hunt goes down in Van Horn TX. I have never been to the place but my GPS shows the waypoints now.

I would have no problem with a hunter following a wounded animal onto my property. Hell, I would help him look and have done so. It is easy to tell when a person is actually trespassing to poach. Their actions and mannerisms are different. And, I have caught poachers.

I caught one guy who told me that his Aunt owned it and he had always hunted it. He was about 20 years old and I had bought the place from his aunt 10 years prior. I escorted him off the land.

Most of the adjoining land to me is non resident owned, large properties, and not hunted. Two are by long term land investors that never come there. One, about 600 to 700 acres, is about to be cut up into 15 acre ranchettes. Not looking forward to that.

This isn't state owned land they are accessing. It is federal land. A state has no control over federal land.

Then the feds need to do it.

That is why the attorneys who rep'd the hunters wanted to take it to the federal courts to make a judgement on the case.

I can’t think of a whole lot of things that get better by governmental involvement on any level.

You really want people like Pelosi, Sanders, Nadler, Schumer, AOC etc... deciding if you can access hunting land? Be very careful what you ask for.

No, courts already decided in favor of the hunters, they want the ruling to stand.
The LO wants it to go higher to get a different ruling, for his behalf.
Best case is Appeals Court stays with current ruling and SCOTUS refuses to take it.

Most , if not all counties in Wyoming would not prosecute corner crossing cases until this LO pushed it with the DA in Carbon County.

The landowner is pursuing a civil case. Landowner lost the civil case and subsequently appealed it. The landowner has also now hired a handful of high powered attorneys to continue suing for over $10 million or similar crazy amount.

Check out this article.

https://oilcity.news/community/wyom...ner-crossing-case-sues-to-unmask-critic/

Hadn’t that moron ever heard of the Streisand Effect?

Regardless of ownership; if a travel easement has not been established and recorded, crossing private land is trespassing. If access to Federal land needs to be established, it is not the responsibility of the private land owner to initiate such an easement. The description of the easement is very specific; if it used for any other purpose, the private land owner can immediately reclaim the land (by fencing, ect.). It will then take court order to re/establish
the access; which will be scrutinized if the judge is not bias.
In the case of retrieval: it varies everywhere. In Texas, Game Officials will not force owners to allow access. In California, the law dictates that recovery of game is mandatory if possible. I’ve called Fish & Game, and they escorted me one time when the owner refused me access.
If you give corner-crossers an inch, it will become a foot; then, a foot becomes a yard; a yard becomes a mile; ect. Very important for owners to “nip it in the bud” because un-objected access over time, and change of hands in ownership can create a “conditional use” or “grandfather” clause which can be difficult to defeat in court.

oh I think he wins big if its unmasked. They slander and lied to destroy his business, a business that had zero to do with this.

I dont agree with his first law suit on devaluation(dumb) but I do on this one

Don’t you think the suit location is interesting?

“Eshelman needs the identity of the J. Doe behind the fake email address to sue him or her in Germany and India for defamation, according to papers filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.”