A bill filed in the Wyoming Legislature would clarify that corner crossing is not trespassing, an explanation that would resolve long-simmering access questions to 2.4 million acres of public land in Wyoming.
House Bill 99, “Access to public lands-corner crossing,” would amend statutes relating to criminal trespass and hunting without permission. If passed, the measure would protect people’s right to access public land, even if they pass through the air above private property to do so.
That right remains clouded despite two court cases favoring access.
At issue is whether one trespasses when passing through the airspace above private property without touching the underlying private land. There’s no law that clarifies the situation, experts say, and landowners have blocked others from public land by claiming airspace trespass.
“It’s important we codify that the people of Wyoming have the right to access their public lands,” said Rep. Karlee Provenza (D-Laramie), the principal sponsor of the one-page measure.
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from one piece of public land to another at the common corner with two pieces of private property — all arranged in a checkboard pattern. The issue came to a head in 2021 at Elk Mountain in Carbon County when four hunters used the method to hunt on public property, reaching the public domain without setting foot on private land.
“The Wyoming Constitution guarantees the right to hunt, fish and trap. Inherent is the public’s right to [access] public land.”
Rep. Karlee Provenza
At such checkerboard locations, private landowners could block public access to 2.4 million acres in Wyoming and 8.3 million acres nationwide if corner crossing is deemed a trespass, according to an analysis by the digital mapping company onX.
House Bill 99 states that a corner-crosser “does not commit trespass” if they incidentally pass through airspace above private land. The measure would protect a corner-crosser even if that person “incidentally … touches the land or premises of another person.”
In the 2021 case, a Carbon County jury found the four Missouri hunters not guilty of trespass at the Elk Mountain Ranch owned by North Carolina pharma millionaire Fred Eshelman. Chief U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl also ruled in the hunters’ favor in a civil suit Eshelman brought against the men.
A complex notion
Although the hunters escaped criminal conviction in their Carbon County trial, that doesn’t set a precedent, their lawyer, Ryan Semerad, said. But the decision in the federal civil court — that corner crossing in the checkerboard landscape in Wyoming is not trespassing — carries considerable weight, he said.
Eshelman has appealed Skavdahl’s decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, where a ruling is pending. Given the appeal and the different criminal and civil fields of law, confusion remains among law enforcement officers and prosecutors, Semerad said.
After Skavdahl’s ruling, which is still in effect, a lot of local law enforcement have said ‘we don’t really know what the status of corner crossing is,’” Semerad said.
“Skavdahl said it certainly is not a civil trespass,” Semerad said. “If it’s not civil trespass, in my opinion it absolutely cannot be a criminal trespass.”
The Provenza bill “would just answer the [law enforcement] question,” he said. If the bill becomes law “there are no more questions to think about, there is not a crime you can cite someone for.”
Because the federal civil verdict is under appeal and could end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are some loose ends that need to be resolved. If appeals overturn Skavdahl’s civil ruling in favor of the hunters, a Wyoming law clarifying that corner crossing is not a criminal trespass would still stand, Semerad said.
A hypothetical Supreme Court order against public access may have some significance in civil law, Semerad said. A federal prosecutor “could bring some kind of trespassy charge” he said.
But that wouldn’t bear on Wyoming criminal law should legislators pass HB 99, Semerad said. If the bill becomes law, “there’s not a law enforcement person in the four corners of Wyoming who could cite a person because there’s no state law making it a crime.”
Making it simple
For Provenza, HB 99 would enshrine an implicit constitutional right.
“The Wyoming Constitution guarantees the right to hunt, fish and trap,” she said. “Inherent is the public’s right to [access] public land.”
Law enforcement appreciates statutes that are straightforward, Provenza said. The bill would “make our laws clear and easy to follow — simple, direct to the point,” she said. “It’s hard to cite somebody if you don’t have a law to do so.”
A bipartisan handful of legislators signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, a version of which had been floated unsuccessfully in 2023. All but one represent constituents and districts along the Union Pacific Railroad line where federal grants in the 1800s created the checkerboard pattern of private and public land.
Reps. Ocean Andrew (R-Laramie), Elissa Campbell (R-Casper), J.T. Larson (R-Rock Springs), Bob Wharff (R-Evanston) and Sens. Stacy Jones (R-Rock Springs), Chris Rothfuss (D-Laramie) and Wendy Schuler (R-Evanston) are co-sponsors.
The bill would make clear that billionaires cannot buy private property in Wyoming that enmeshes adjacent checkerboard public land and turn that public land into “their private playground,” Provenza said. She called such de-facto privatization “wrong and dishonest.”
Provenza doesn’t want to tarry while robed deciders wring their hands or otherwise mull the issue.
“I’m not one to sit by and hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision when we know people’s rights are on the line,” she said.
In North Dakota all section lines have public access, that’s the way it should in in all of the US, including Wyoming.
Vote them out if they don’t give you access.
House Bill 99 is Dead. Speaker Neiman didn’t allow it to be heard. Now we wait on the 10th Circuit for their ruling.
If the private land is fenced would this law allow climbing private fences?
In my opinion private property rights are not negotiable. Access must be agreed upon with the owner either by written permission or through purchase of an easement without coercion.
The unlawful inclosures act of 1885 makes fencing off of public land illegal and with good reason. Private landowners can keep the public off their own property, but they are not entitled to turn public land into their personal tax free playground.
Could eminent domain solve the four corners problem? Could an alternative solution be to have the state take the four adjacent corners, perhaps as a ten-foot by ten-foot square, placed diagonally over the four corners, by eminent domain? That is small enough to make no meaningful difference to the private owners, and would allow for ordinary walking, without having to go airborne.
Also, persons who are handicapped, pregnant or ill would be able to go from one corner of public land to the next without risk of injury.
I presume all of you in favor of corner crossing would never object to cyclists or even motorist Dring across your lawns instead of going clear to the street connection and turning. If you insist the rancher must give you access to his land to save you some steps, then you must be willing to return the favor
You don’t understand public versus private land, do you?
You should read more and post less
That is certainly the truth in your case. Public ownership does not automatically guarantee access through private land.
Property ownership is key to a free state.
With all the taxpayer funded farm welfare payments, access fees have already been paid
If my land was completely blocking access to the public road, you can bet that the township would eminent domain a road across my land, which would result in cyclists and vehicles driving across it. But then again I am not an out of state billionaire trying to turn thousands of acres of public land into my own personal playground.
In my lifetime I have seen our nation become more like old England, where the aristocrats kept the king’s lands to themselves. I grew up listening to stories of poachers, serfs and peasants who were severely punished for trespassing on the kings’ lands. As a child it was impressed on me how this was fundamentally WRONG. Seems like we can replace the word “Aristocrats” with the word “Billionaires” to understand what is happening in our country.
The price of the private property is not the issue.
I am going to bet it won’t pass
You mean elected representative will side with out of state billionaires attempting to expropriate public land instead of the people who actually voted for them? I am shocked! Shocked I say!
Hey Robber Barons, Outfitter butt-kissers and the likes, don’t worry, the “Freedom” caucus will shut this bill down. They’re all about the “people”, right? Yea…”there” people. The average taxpaying Wyomingite who wants to access publicly owned lands will get the shaft from the faux freedom caucus
You called it, the Bill is dead.
When someone steps across a corner, nothing tangible or of any real value is taken from the private landowner. However, very real rights to hunt, use, and enjoy are taken from the public when lands they own and pay taxes for management are denied by a private landowner, who is simply a neighbor, not the sole owner of the public land adjacent to their property.
In Europe paths, lanes, and roads that have crossed private lands for centuries are considered public right of ways to allow access to dispersed parcels of public lands. The same should be true for adjoining corners of public lands in the USA.
I feel that the issue here is the right of public access to federal and state lands. No land owners has the right to block that access. In my opinion. The federal or state land managements should have the right to create a public access to these lands at these checker board location. Meaning that right of way should be established at these locations to allow public access by enough
room by foot, horse or ATV. If the land owners does not agree to this then their land should be combemed at these locations to make room for these public access locations. Also if there are federal lands that is surrounded by private land that does not have a checker board access point the the landowners must provide a public access to these public lands.
US citizens should not have to defense themselves for wanting access to our public lands.
It has become common practice for rich miners, ranchers and foresters to surround our public lands to intentionally cut us off.
The american people need to take more interest in what is happening in our western states. We have been paying taxes on, and to, the US government for decades to preserve and protect it for all generations use. He’s a piece by piece he’s criminal.
Let’s all hope that this bill gets passed. All citizens deserve access to our public lands.
I’m not sure that I understand exactly what this is, but I blieve if you own private land next to public land you need to stick to your own private land. I also believe that no one should be hunting on public lands! Aren’t we protecting the animals on public lands; we should be!
People have had the right to hunt any accessible public lands in Wyoming for over a century. We even have now a Constitutional right to hunt accessible public lands
Yes, we need more access to our public land!
What is the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals waiting on? How much time do they need to issue a ruling, it’s been almost a year.
Great job Karlee Provence, House Bill 99 is exactly what the state needs to give the owners of public lands access to their lands.
It s about time we got this issue settled. Land owners who try to stop someone from crossing at a corner to get to public land so be fined. Its a corner for god sake, no one is talking about being able to drive across the corner, just to step over onto OUR public land. These out of state land owners are the problem. Then they turn around and whin to WGF that the wildlife is eating there hay or destroying fences and they expect the state to pay them. Give me a break. I think we have enough good old boys and girls in the gov’t to get this passed.
GREAT! Hope it passes and we can quit kowtowing to the wealthy.
I have not read the bill but interesting that its scope is limited to amending the criminal laws. Removing civil liability (and criminal) for corner crossers would almost certainly be a ‘taking’ with the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, provided the 10th Circuit holds that corner crossing has always been illegal, which I think is likely. Passing a law which says you can’t enforce a property right you’ve long had – like the right to exclude – is unquestionably a “taking”. But states have wide latitude to define crimes and things get a little murkier in this area. Since corner crossing would be not-criminal under this new law – query whether the legislature could lawfully prohibit a landowner from using reasonable force to expel these intruders, who may not be criminals under state law, but depending on the 10th Circuit’s ruling, may still be liable for civil trespass.
Counterpoint: Corner crossing has never been illegal. Corner crossing is not a legal term with any established meaning. It is a fictional and pejorative term made up by people who want to prevent the public from accessing public land (similar to the state of Utah’s use of the phrase unappropriated land). To the contrary for centuries, the public domain was open to all for lawful purposes and adjacent private land owners could not use any means to stop the public from lawfully enjoying and using the public domain.
I don’t use corner crossing pejoratively – I use it to describe a person who crosses the common corners of separate properties in the checkerboard. If a nurse or a nun moved like that, I would say he or she crossed the corners and was thus a corner-crosser who was corner-crossing. In any event , the right to exclude trespassers has always extended to even the smallest portions of property. In Loretto, the Supreme Court invalidated a law which compelled owners of large rental buildings to permit a cable box to be installed. The itty-bitty cable box transgressed the owners’ right to exclude. Re corner crossing: forget “airspace” or the other red herrings which make non-lawyers roll their eyes- there is simply no practical way to cross the common corners of any property without proceeding across the adjoining property. Whether that is a ‘trespass’ would not be an interesting or novel question from a basic property rights perspective. See Loretto. As I read the parties’ arguments though, it seems like the case is more that the Unlawful Inclosure Act, a federal law, privileged this type of movement. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. There’s a reason the question is on appeal, right? I suspect it doesn’t. For one, as your comment and I think the act recognizes, only “stop[ping] the public from lawfully enjoying and using the public domain” is prohibited. Emphasis on lawful. I think the law uses the terms “peaceably” and “unlawful” means. Is a person who crosses over another’s property to reach the public domain, lawfully (or peaceably?) reaching the public domain? (To do something “peaceably” as the law defines it, often excludes conduct which is illegal.) If you build a fence or otherwise try to exclude such a person (such as by a civil suit for trespass, as here), are you preventing someone from lawfully reaching the public domain, using “unlawful means”? This seems like a question the 10th Circuit has to look to state law to resolve. And I don’t think it’s turtles all the way down because state law is basically uniform on the issue from what I know: where adjacent properties meet in a common corner, none of the adjoining owners have a default easement over the common corner. Two centuries of “flag” lots and easements providing for neighbor’s access across corner’s conform that. Plus, isn’t there multiple attempts by the Wyo legislature, spanning over a decade, to make lawful this practice? When the legislature tries to pass a law saying something is allowed, the judiciary might be safe (but not always) in assuming that without the law, something is not allowed. That or the legislature was just playing patty-cake and all them guys and gals actually misunderstood the status-quo. Can’t be ruled out, but we know how courts generally defer to legislature’s judgments.
A fair presentation of the arguments for reversing the district court’s decision. There are, of course, some pretty good arguments to affirm that decision. I’ll stand on my briefs and previously made argument.
Only one side can be right. And we will just have to wait to see which side that is.
Hope you are well, Austin.
My bet is the Famous Freedom Caucus won’t pass this needed legislation.
they are more about Freedom to be a good old boy rancher
This is an example of responsive representation from these legislators. I’ve read the bill’s wording, and it’s brief and straightforward. This should be passed to protect people’s right to accessible public lands.
Thank you to the people trying to keep hunting in the common man’s realm and not the “sport of kings”.
Like skiing/golfing/etc., “the rich” more and more are the only ones able to afford those activities. Hunting is different as we engage in it to literally feed our families, and are quickly being priced out by affluent “sportsmen”.
I totally agree, I do not feel corner crossing should be illegal. I am a landowner and I have public and private property, no corner crossing but I am both a hunter and a landowner. As long as the private property is not tresspassed, I see no reason, why does private “air” property rights have more sway than public “air” property rights? it dont make sense to me. Even a 2 or 3 foot easement corner to corner. It just a power play to lock up public land for pennies on the dollar compared to private property.
This is a law we have long needed and I hope that it gains the support of all the freedom loving members of the legislature. Public access to public land is a core Wyoming value.
why not make owning private property a crime ?
that will fix everthing.
Seems like all the landowners will have to do is raise the height of the fences on the corners.
Many of these crossed corners have no fences.