The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has backed four hunters sued by a wealthy ranch owner for corner crossing on Carbon County’s Elk Mountain, preserving public access to millions of acres of federal property.
A three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that a Wyoming federal judge concluded correctly when he said that Fred Eshelman, the owner of the Elk Mountain Ranch, could not block four Missouri men from passing through the airspace of his property when they stepped from one piece of BLM land to another, without touching Eshelman’s land.
Corner crossing involves stepping from one piece of public land to another at the common corner with two pieces of private property — without touching the private land. While it stands to affect much of the American West, the practice has particular resonance in southern Wyoming where millions of acres are laid out in a “checkerboard” of alternating public and private mile-square sections.
[Fred Eshelman ] cannot implement a program which has the effect of denying access to federal public lands for lawful purposes.”
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
By blocking passage at such corners, whether by physical obstruction or threats or trespass citations issued by law enforcement, private landowners are able to enjoy exclusive access to public land.
Eshelman sued the hunters in 2022 after they corner crossed to hunt elk and deer on federal land enmeshed in his 22,045-acre ranch.
The law doesn’t allow private landowners to prevent others from corner crossing in the checkerboard area of Wyoming — as long as they do not touch the private property — Wyoming Chief U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in 2023. Federal appellate judges David M. Ebel, Timothy M. Tymkovich and Nancy Louise Moritz unanimously sided with Skavdahl’s ruling in the just-concluded appeal.
In reaching their decision, the judges relied on case law and the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885, which prohibits blocking access in such situations.
“The western checkerboard and UIA reflect a storied period of our history,” Tymkovich wrote. “Whatever the UIA’s merits today, it—and the case law interpreting it—remain good federal law.”
“Applying that law here, [Eshelman’s landholding company] Iron Bar cannot implement a program which has the effect of ‘deny[ing] access to [federal] public lands for lawful purposes[.]’” he wrote. “So the district court was correct to hold that the Hunters could corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar’s land.”
The case has implications not only for the 2.4 million acres of “corner-locked” land in Wyoming, but also for 8.3 million acres across the West.
This is a breaking news story and may be updated – Ed.
I’m confused. What does the court mean by “as long as they do not touch the private property”? Isn’t that what they were sued for doing? How does one cross the corner and not touch the private property? Are we talking about stepping over the lines at the intersection so you move straight from one public block to the other (the public SE block to the public NW block), but don’t you dare slightly touch the private NE block or private SW block?
If so, how petty.
I grew up on a sheep ranch near Riverton. Bird hunting is primairly what took place, but shearing or butchering the sheep revealed pellets in virtually every one….and bird hunting was mostly what took place. How does anyone mistake a cow/calf or sheep for a bird?
Great news, BUT–there is always a “but”. Attorney Eric Hanson (from a different article) stated that OnX or a fence is probably not enough to ensure that you are at the actual property line. You need to have a survey monument. It is highly unlikely that you are going to find one of these at a corner that you want to cross. And, I would expect property owners will just build a taller section of fence at the corners that are likely to be used. How many people are going to carry a ladder that could prevent touching a ten foot tall fence for one or more corners? Plus carrying an elk up and down that ladder would be another barrier.
This is a way cool outcome for the average Joe & Joan. Eshelman’s insistence in pursuing this can’t be popular with most Wyoming large tract landowners, who practiced a more friendly approach and lived with the ambiguity. If pushed further I believe the public could win reasonable foot or equestrian easements (not vehicles) that would not require a step-ladder.
At a time when our federal district judges are improperly under attack, I am proud that Judge Skavdahl’s decision was upheld. Fingers crossed.
It is fair to criticize the judiciary. They still work for us, they are a public servant. But holding them responsible for their decisions is hard and frustrating . That said, Skavdahl is one of the more level headed and fair people on the bench.
It remains to be seen how the handicapped will be treated regarding access to the public domain under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Are “walk-in only” public lands denied to disabled Americans because they are disabled?
Ok, maybe a dumb question; if a landowner intentionally blocks access to public land so that he has exclusive use of it doesn’t he owe a use tax or franchise fee based on the acreage he now controls?
That could then set a precedent of control over that land, possibly allowing future stronger restrictions against the right of access now being stolen.
The most important affirmation in all of the courts cases is the recognition of the validity of the inlawful inclosures act of 1885.
The law simply says: It is unlawful to inclose/enclose public lands. In other words the public does not need to corner cross. Not allowing access and unlawfully inclosing/enclosing is illegal.
Google and read all the court cases that ensued after it was passed. Especially note that one judge said buyers of land within the checkerboard were knowing buyers and could not unlawfully enclose.
But Wyoming passed their own laws meant to thwart the federal law and allowed the creation of fiefdoms.
Still I predict it will be a long fight against big money and those with political clout.
A common sense decision here, and long overdue. Unfortunately, this is where the nastiness will begin – our entitled corporate Jesus class isn’t going to surrender their public playgrounds without some additional legal battles and barbwire nastiness at the corners. We have a SCOTUS that is now overtly for sale, so expecting this to get flipped in exchange for a yacht ride [Google “Clarence Thomas gifts received” for an idea of how much of a bargain his support is]. More people can afford to buy a judge than eggs in Team Orange 2.0.
What next? Charge planes with trespassing for flying over private land?
Hey Fred E. Thank You for bringing this to America’s attention. I’ll be sure to send you a thank you card when I’m by your ranch stepping from one corner of public land to another. Didn’t work out so well for you, but you sure helped out the little guy just wanting to recreate on public land.
The only thing robber baron Eshelman accomplished was kicking a hornet’s nest and not being fast enough or smart enough to run. Four good ole’ Missouri Boys took down a giant. This CC matter also exposed our Game and Fish Department as a spineless lacky for the big landowners when they failed to cite the Eshelman thugs, especially the snarky mouthed “do you know how rich my boss is” lacky ranch manager for harassing the ‘Missouri 4’ while they legally hunted public land. Eshelman also spoiled the show for the rest of the checkerboard welfare cowboys who now will have to stand back and watch hunters and other recreationalists legally access the BLM parcels. Well, they better stay on the sidelines because there are many of us who are more then willing to handle a harassment situation right on the spot without the pansy Game and Fish getting involved
Public land that has no access, is not public.
Like so many other outdoor activities, hunting is slowly moving towards recreation for the rich.
I tip my hat to the guys that used the ladders over the corner to make this ranch look like a fool.
I agree. Wyoming needs to have a section line type of law like the Dakotas do. Locking out a parcel of public land because you have adjacent corners to it is despicable.
Next thing you know, the courts will make him build a resting center for the hunter’s….I’m for the land owner!!! If you GIVE AN INCH, people will take a MILE….that is pretty much a FACT IN 2025!!!!
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
The landowner won. The public is the land owner of these federal lands and they won access to their lands. Private landowners do not have the right to control who uses land that is held by the government, it is not just theirs.
The problem is what occurs on private land, is it ok for me to picnic on your lawn because the street in front is government owned? Even land owned by the government is leased to ranchers, so if you rent publically owned home can anyone do as they please there? What if it is privately owned?
The land in question isn’t privately owned, and your analogy is flawed anyway.
bravo rick !
That’s just absurd, and it’s the perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy at work. There is zero evidence that this decision will lead to anything like the the scenario you are suggesting. And fight? fight who? over what? and how? The legal system is working the way it’s supposed to. The fact that you disagree with a particular court decision doesn’t justify the instigation of any kind of fight, except by the filing of an appeal.
As one person commented “give a man a inch and he’ll take a mile”. You sound exactly like a landowner or a big high paid hunter who is now upset that you can’t have all that public land to yourself and your rich friends. All public land in the United States should have access points, and I’ll go a step further to say that NO hunting outfits should be able to conduct and type of hunting or fishing on those lands. My family for many years used to be able to hunt many animals in Wyoming until lawmakers and the state changed it to side with the big ranchers and outfitters. roads that use to have access blocked ect. It’s about time the courts side with the common man.
See: Public Landowner. It’s a real thing. Unfortunately, in today’s highly corrupted oligarch infested ‘Murika, the public landowners have to go thru the courts for access to what rightfully belongs to all the American people. This was gifted to us by the Founders, and handed down generation after generation. The vileness of the private holders believing they and they alone should have a publicly funded private playground never passed the common sense test. End ranching and ag welfare, open up public lands.
We will fight, fight, fight to gain access to PUBLIC LAND.
Thank you so much Rick for stepping up and being “for the landowner”. Thank you Rick for supporting the PUBLIC landowners in this fight. Landowners like me and the millions of other PUBLIC landowners throughout the United States. You can continue FIGHTING for us Ricky, the public landowners, by sending a significant financial contribution to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers who spearheaded the fight to protect our public lands!
What part of public lands don’t you get. As long as those hunters didn’t step on Iron Bar’s property but over it and onto public land….the People’s land, I might add….they did nothing wrong. I’m all for property rights, but they shouldn’t be used to lock others out of public land. These judges ruled correctly. Period.
Slippery slope fallacy. You couldn’t come up with anything actually wrong with this so you made up an imaginary grievance in your head to be angry about.
Increasingly common in 2025.
I know billionaires feel entitled to everything in the country that isn’t nailed down, but they don’t own the federal lands they’re enclosing. It’s practically theft of public lands and they deserve this loss
Don’t break out the your ladders yet. The monster money behind this will go to the SCOTUS because now is the time to strike for the monster money. The POTUS is looking at the sale of “under utilized lands” for housing. Just guess what lands the DOI and USDA might pick.
It’ll be interesting to see what kind of criteria DOI and HUD put on proposals to sell federal land for housing development. Stay tuned….as far as Iron Bar is concerned, Fred hasn’t run out of money yet, and billionaires hate to lose.
They’ve put out a report you can look at. It’s really just desert lands near large metropolitan areas, many of which are already subject to transfer under existing laws or are specifically divested by acts of Congress to the nearby cities every few years it seems. I have not seen a proposal for areas like Wyoming where public lands are not understood to be a constraint on housing supply.
But if we do ever get there (I hope we don’t), I would like to begin publicizing my claim to 40 acres on the SE corner of Jackson Lake.
Our Carbon County jury got it exactly right then, good for them. Great to see that confirmed by the 10th Circuit. Congrats to the four Missouri hunters and their tenacious attorneys.
Well, I would be willing to bet that this gets appealed. Some of these landowners feel that they own the public land that they land lock.
I hope this ends this fuss fight but I’d bet it won’t!
There are 3 options for Eschelman:
1. He admits defeat and drops the lawsuit.
2. He appeals this 3 judge decision to the full 10th Circuit (en banc).
3. He appeals directly to the US Supreme Court.
The latter would concern me, given the US Supreme Court’s hostility to precedent. Still this is a good decision for the public, especially for hunters.
By the way, I hit the wrong button on the below comment. The actual link for the decision is here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111205718.pdf.
Mr. Hoskins,
— Thanks very much for the link. It is wonderful that the Courts make their full opinions available online. Reading the actual words of the Court adds to any reporter’s version, even a reporter as good as Angus.
— Best wishes, Phil.
Given the threats to public lands and access to them from the Trump administration as well as from billionaires, this is good news. Those who want to read the decision can find it here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/opinions/daily.