Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Dougfirtree]

In the court filing, the defendants mention looking for the actual corner markers when crossing corners. I assume they're talking about a metal spike driven into the ground. I have never crossed a corner in Wyoming, what percentage of them actually have markers?

 

[mhungerford]

In the court filing, the defendants mention looking for the actual corner markers when crossing corners. I assume they're talking about a metal spike driven into the ground. I have never crossed a corner in Wyoming, what percentage of them actually have markers?

in my experience most of the corners are in. be it an original stone marker or a brass cap

 

[Irrelevant]

In the court filing, the defendants mention looking for the actual corner markers when crossing corners. I assume they're talking about a metal spike driven into the ground. I have never crossed a corner in Wyoming, what percentage of them actually have markers?

I think that was mentioned a few pages back, if I remember right, a surprisingly high % of them.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Good brief.

One thought for us to keep in mind as we watch this play out - there are ways these defendants can win and still not provide great comfort or clear resolution to the majority of situations (which of course is not their job).

For example, if the court were to agree (and be upheld on appeal) with the UIA analysis but limit adjacent corner access to the exact marked corners, finding that the defendant's GPS was insufficiently accurate but the evidence of specific corner markers in their case was sufficient -- defendants prevail. And then the court could reject (or remain silent) on the other rationales. This scenario doesn't fix the problem for all the unmarked corners.

Versus the court ruling (and it being upheld) that UIA adjacent access would allow for good faith understanding of corner location absent markers with GPS meeting this standard. That would be a slamdunk outcome for pubic land hunters.

Defendants win either way - but some ways are better than others for public land access.

One angle I wish they would have proactively addressed was how, "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" should be considered vs an arugment that "airspace tresspass" over their corner has an effect on a landowner's right/title to the land. You know the county will argue it, so best to get your view set preemptively in my view.

 

[Irrelevant]

Good brief.

One thought for us to keep in mind as we watch this play out - there are ways these defendants can win and still not provide great comfort or clear resolution to the majority of situations (which of course is not their job).

For example, if the court were to agree (and be upheld on appeal) with the UIA analysis but limit adjacent corner access to the exact marked corners, finding that the defendant's GPS was insufficiently accurate but the evidence of specific corner markers in their case was sufficient -- defendants prevail. And then the court could reject (or remain silent) on the other rationales. This scenario doesn't fix the problem for all the unmarked corners.

That could be an easy fix. Simply pay to have all the public corners marked.

 

[BuzzH]

That could be an easy fix. Simply pay to have all the public corners marked.

What very few that aren't.

I would bet nearly all of them are marked where there's a private/public corner.

The only ones that likely aren't are in the middle of large blocks of public.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That could be an easy fix. Simply pay to have all the public corners marked.

That was, by its own words, an example. There are many paths to happy defendants/sad hunters. But I am rooting for a big public lands win!

 

[Dougfirtree]

Good brief.

One thought for us to keep in mind as we watch this play out - there are ways these defendants can win and still not provide great comfort or clear resolution to the majority of situations (which of course is not their job).

For example, if the court were to agree (and be upheld on appeal) with the UIA analysis but limit adjacent corner access to the exact marked corners, finding that the defendant's GPS was insufficiently accurate but the evidence of specific corner markers in their case was sufficient -- defendants prevail. And then the court could reject (or remain silent) on the other rationales. This scenario doesn't fix the problem for all the unmarked corners.

Versus the court ruling (and it being upheld) that UIA adjacent access would allow for good faith understanding of corner location absent markers with GPS meeting this standard. That would be a slamdunk outcome for pubic land hunters.

Defendants win either way - but some ways are better than others for public land access.

One angle I wish they would have proactively addressed was how, "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" should be considered vs an arugment that "airspace tresspass" over their corner has an effect on a landowner's right/title to the land. You know the county will argue it, so best to get your view set preemptively in my view.

Though if a large percentage of corners are marked, it might not be so bad to be unable to rely on GPS. And if there's a decision that says the violation of airspace isn't a trespass, the burden really falls completely on the landowner to prove someone hasn't accurately crossed the corner. I would imagine what little enforcement there is then turns to zero and the problem is effectively solved.
I don't have a ton of faith in the state to make a decision that goes against the wishes of big landowners, but I have hope.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What very few that aren't.

I would bet nearly all of them are marked where there's a private/public corner.

The only ones that likely aren't are in the middle of large blocks of public.

Cool - some guys I know in MT had suggested a 50-50 proposition - but I am happy to have my understanding updated.

 

[BuzzH]

That was, by its own words, an example. There are many paths to happy defendants/sad hunters. But I am rooting for a big public lands win!

From my understanding after a conversation with JM77, who consulted with an attorney, there is likely going to be an easier path to SC.

 

[COEngineer]

From my understanding after a conversation with JM77, who consulted with an attorney, there is likely going to be an easier path to SC.

SC?

 

[BuzzH]

SC?

Supreme court.

 

[300stw]

i hope the hunters win on enough fronts, that the lawyers they have allready paid for, go for civil suits, and someone goes after the landowner for court costs ect,,,,it would be wonderful for a succesful hunter harassment charge to be filed and found guilty,,

 

[VikingsGuy]

SC

WY SC or SCOTUS?

 

[BuzzH]

WY SC or SCOTUS?

Maybe both.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe both.

It may very well take that to get this right. Seems though like the county would drop charges or not appeal local court ruling rather than creating statewide or nationwide precedent. But maybe the "boss" has "so much money" and "so much land" he goads them off the cliff. We can only hope he does - otherwise, continued ambiguity just harms some users of public lands.

 

[TOGIE]

But maybe the "boss" has "so much money" and "so much land" he goads them off the cliff. We can only hope he does...

he's willingly dropped trou and bent himself over to get this far already...

he might as well go for broke.

 

[Dakotakid]

Or the prosecutor recognizes that this matter needs to be decided regardless of the final outcome.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Or the prosecutor recognizes that this matter needs to be decided regardless of the final outcome.

but, "so much money," "so much land"

@wllm1313, @noharleyyet or @Ben Lamb need to whip up a few great memes for this - that manager is a total fool, and now a fool for all to watch.

 

[Dakotakid]

And so much potential for violence and turmoil. That is why congress passed the UAI in 1880…