“Corner crossing is a civil trespass under Wyoming Law,” and an 1885 federal prohibition against blocking passage to public land does not override the state’s statute, the ranch owner at the center of a closely watched suit claimed in legal papers filed Friday.
In a 31-page reply, Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman’s attorneys asked the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Wyoming’s Chief U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl’s finding that corner crossing does not constitute trespass. The filing could be the last before the federal appellate court hears oral arguments in the sweeping trespass case.
At stake, Eshelman’s attorneys maintain, are billions of dollars in private property value that could be lost if Skavdahl’s ruling stands.
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from one piece of public land to another, over the common corner with two pieces of private property, all arranged in a checkerboard pattern of land ownership. Skavdahl decided that corner crossing in Wyoming’s checkerboard ownership landscape — without touching private land or causing damage — is not trespassing.
Three hunters from Missouri in 2020 and four in 2021 corner crossed to reach and hunt on thousands of acres of wildlife-rich public land on Elk Mountain enmeshed within Eshelman’s Carbon County ranch. Simply passing through the airspace above a corner of Eshelman’s 22,042-acre property was trespassing, the North Carolina pharma magnate contended in the civil suit he filed and lost.
“[L]andowners do have the right to prevent the public from trespassing on their property, and that is the only right that [Eshelman’s ranch-holding company] Iron Bar has ever asserted.”
Attorneys for Fred Eshelman
In the ongoing appeal, Eshelman’s legal team states that the hunters “try to excuse their trespass primarily by invoking the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act, even though the Act does not apply.” It’s true that Eshelman’s rights do not include “a right to exclude the public from the public domain,” the ranch owner’s lawyers state.
“But landowners do have the right to prevent the public from trespassing on their property, and that is the only right that [Eshelman’s ranch-holding company] Iron Bar has ever asserted,” the filing states.
Modern range war?
Corner crossing is trespassing under Wyoming law, and federal law doesn’t authorize corner crossing or preempt Wyoming’s trespass statute, Eshelman argues. Further, Congress didn’t set out to preempt Wyoming law through the Unlawful Inclosures Act, courts have sided with that view and “legalizing” corner crossing is a policy decision, not a court one, the filing states.
Eshelman, his ranching supporters, the hunters and their allies — including Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and conservation groups — agree the case has implications for public access to some 6 million acres of public land in the West. That’s the least amount of public land considered inaccessibly “corner locked” if corner crossing is trespassing.
The hunters’ argument is more the revival of a Western range-war story than a legal point, Eshelman’s attorneys claim, a story that asks the court to play sheriff, defend the little man and “restor[e] order to the West.” In fact, “[r]eality is more nuanced,” the filing states.
According to Eshelman, the hunters argue “they are not really asking for the right to intrude on private property,” The filing states. “Rather, they claim only that Iron Bar does not have the right to prevent such intrusions through trespass claims.”
Eshelman’s lawyers state that the hunters “assert that every member of the public has an unfettered right to trespass across private property in order to recreate on any otherwise inaccessible public land that lies beyond it. The hunters’ case “rests on the fallacy that if the government gives the public an implied license to use public land, then the public must automatically have the right to conveniently access that land, even over private property.”
In relying on their interpretation of the Unlawful Inclosures Act, the hunters advance “the extraordinary argument that in 1885, Congress stripped over 150 million acres of private land of the most valuable property right there is — the right to exclude.”
It is even more extraordinary, the filing states, that the 1885 act would make “this sea change in the nation’s property law — what could be the most widespread taking in American History — apparently … without any notice or fanfare.” Allowing Skavdahl’s ruling to stand “would erase billions of dollars of private-property value,” Eshelman’s filing states.
Allowing Skavdah’s ruling in favor of the hunters to stand “would revolutionize property law,” Eshelman’s filing adds.
Swarming hunters
The filing revisits several Unlawful Inclosures Act cases including Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, in which courts determined that the government had no right to construct a road across a checkerboard corner to reach its property beyond.
“Property law does not distinguish between rights of access for roadbuilding and other rights of access, and neither did the Supreme Court in Leo Sheep,” the filing states.
Skavdahl relied on another case, Mackay v. Unita Development Co., in which shepherd Mackay won the right to trail his herd across private property to reach public grazing land. Both Mackay and its interpretation are off-base, the Eshelman filing claims.
In siding with the sheepherder Mackay, “the majority [of justices] cited the custom of the open range,” Eshelman’s filing states, a custom from an era that has passed. “It is not the judiciary’s job to update the UIA’s text to redress modern access problems not foreseen or addressed by the enacting Congress,” the filing states.
If Skavdahl’s ruling stands, a cascade of disruption will follow, the filing states, including “ranchers leading their herds, all-terrain enthusiasts driving their ATVs….” Hunters, “with high-powered rifles, will roam freely within the perimeter [of ranches] without notifying anyone of their presence.”
To protect their property, ranchers will erect more fences that would “interrupt previously intact wildlife corridors and habitats, leading to biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation,” the filing states.
“If Mackay remains the law … there is no principle that will limit Mackay to corner crossing,” Eshelman contends. People will cross private property willy-nilly to reach public land miles beyond, the filing claims.
Corner crossing is not simple, despite the emergence of GPS apps that provide cell-phone maps of property ownership, the filing states. “Even if a corner crosser manages to find a brass cap [marking a surveyed checkerboard corner] it will often be too late — in the process of searching around, he will already have trespassed on private property multiple times.”
Eshelman and Iron Bar filed their appeal last year. The hunters responded and several groups joined each side in filing amicus briefs. The brief filed Friday is Eshelman’s reply to the hunters’ and their allies’ briefs.
Both sides have asked to argue the case in front of the appeals court, with Eshelman’s attorneys noting “the public significance of the issues raised.”
The whole corner crossing issue seems ridiculous. No land owner should be able to “landlock” public lands, period! In fact a portion of their land should be required to provide corridor’s to access public land. I understand the concerns that yahoos always extend their access privileges…and of course the use of high powered rifles around a homestead. Can’t that be handled by making it unlawful to discharge a firearm within a certain range of parameters? And of course I haven’t mentioned fishing… These issues seem to plague the western states but don’t occur just there. Do you own the water, the river, the trail, the roadway… Wow. It certainly brings to mind the Natives understanding of owning the land; they didn’t understand it…
Someone please explain how a person can claim a “loss of billions of dollars “ for something they don’t own!! If he were to sell the ranch, would a realtor list the property of “X” amount of property owned, plus all public lands within????
Now we have another “Billionaire” who wants to change Boundurant to “Little Jackson Hole”!! Another case of big money!
This is yet another example of a very wealthy person asserting that “their interests overshadow and supersede those of everyday Americans. His attorney openly stated that the trespass occurred by passing through “the air space” of the wealthy landowner (won’t call him a rancher as he probably doesn’t know a grass from a sedge, let alone a Hereford from an elk). If the court rules that a citizen cannot cross over the “air space, without touching the private property) where does it end. Am I subject to trespass when I fly over another persons private property, in an airplane? It would seem so! While it may not seem like this is a major court action on the surface, if the plaintiff prevails where will it end? Are we trespassing by simply looking at it – or maybe taking a picture???
It has become increasingly difficult to find quality hunting spaces not occupied by private ownership. Land owners no longer entertain the congenial hunter asking nicely to access land respectfully. A high dollar lease excluding the the common working person has become the norm. Checkerboard land access is the right of the public and I don’t buy the devaluation claim. If you want all the land then buy it outright and continue to dissolve the limited access we as hunters have. The courts decision was by law and in the best interest of the citizenry!
When access public lands are purposely blocked by private land owners it creates an “exclusive private reserve” out of the public land. That is the billions of dollars of value being alluded to. I believe that NO public land should ever be “land-locked” by private parcels. Easements should exist for public access to all public lands and Corner crossing at a minimum.
He’s claiming airspace? That would set precedent to shut down all air travel. You can’t fly into any major city without flying over houses and curtilage, and the courts have always held that open fields have less protection than curtilage.
Land barrons are trying to convert the west into the east, where you have to be part of a club to recreate in the outdoors. I don’t know how there’s even a legal argument over this. There is federal law stating that you can’t block access to public land, and there is a supremacy clause in Article 6, Paragraph 2 in the United States Constitution.
I seriously doubt that the IRS would agree with the private property owners that they could lose billions of dollars due to corner crossing.
Granting the right of passage in any land not owned is done by easement. What is being talked about here amounts to the public asking for courts to grant access to private lands without an easement. The problem is this would be used to say no one has private property, just property they paid for that anyone can access, eventually, nationwide.
The government has the right of emminent domain. They can take the land and declare an easement.
Well Harry, I’d be willing to bet that you’re likely an eastern urbanite. If you read the court papers and, more importantly, the statement by his attorney – no easement is needed or warranted. The individual is simply stepping from one corner of public land onto another adjacent and contiguous corner of public land. The private land is never touched – He is suing to stipulate that The AIR” above his property is his and therefore private! Wake up guys! This is a big one and if Americans are prohibited from “occupying the airspace” above private property, even for a second, where will it end? The super rich are endeavoring to convert America into a socialist state – where the rich control everything, including the air we breath. What would be the difference between stepping through his airspace and simply leaning over the fence and taking a breath of air???
Another result of the crazy checkerboard land system set up to incentivize the railroad companies to build train tracks. Give away public land with trees and minerals. Railroads get rich and provide value to other rich people to claim for land they never own.
Public land has to have public access. These characters with deep pockets from out of state come in and buy a big ranch, expecting to keep access to public land blocked so they have sole use of that public land. Didn’t pay for it. Don’t pay taxes on it. And get their expensive legal beagles to go to court and demand “their rights”. And the public doesn’t get to access public land while access is fought over.
Sell out and go back home. The West doesn’t need your kind. The entitled kind. There are too many here as it is.
Very interesting article. As a former REALTOR, I’ll be following this issue.
Although I see both sides on this storied dispute being a land owner myself with property that runs like this in our area in Colorado. I feel the land owner has this right. Myself being a hunter and fisherman along with a natural instinct of conservation respect my neighbors. I believe it should be a negotiation of allowing people to do this with asking for permission so it is monitored and not overrun to be good stewards of the land. This is just an honest man’s opinion.
Yes we have similar situation here in Oregon
I have a question. Does the ranch pay any fees to any entity for the use of the land locked property for their private use.
Public land belongs to the people, the end.
Do landowners have the right to keep the general public from trespassing on their property. Absolutely. The real question is, does the public have the right to access the land they pay for?
I have been stopped numerous times running into corners that on GPS tell me that I have access to 400 acres only to be stopped. By offset fencing at corners that in no way are the true corner boundaries.! It would be so simple to set up a stair crossing at corners to access public land from one piece to another! As a hunter and a land owner, my personal opinion is that land owners trying to exclude access is pure greed and selfishness. Give the land and its resources back to the public.! All of it.! When I use my GPS app it’s easy to tell where you are at and in no way do you trespass. It’s easy to find where you should have access.! Private property is exactly that. Stay off.! Public property is exactly that.! Should have easement and full access.! One example is on the bear lodge Forrest in eastern wyoming, there is 14000 acres that are land locked and its a county road that accesses the land and is posted by the fish and game. It’s about 200 yards to the Forrest from main highway.! It’s special interests for sure.! Make public property accessible!… Ranchers and outfitters have been taking advantage of these properties for decades! Time to give it back to the people!
I agree 100%. Let the public have access.
The assertion that”property rights “ include the atmosphere above Terra firma are inherently fallacious and ridiculous in the extreme. Unless you are a sovereign nation, it is just a prime example of the privileged few manipulating the law with the means of deep pockets and high priced lawyers. The most galling of all is this chocolate man from the great state of North Carolina sashays out west to form his little empire complete with a small band henchmen and give the finger to the rest of the citizens of the United States of America. Speaking as a veteran of two branches of the Armed Forces, retired businessman, and experienced hunter of North America and the United Kingdom. Please straighten this ridiculous injustice out now. A former proud Tarheel.
“At stake, Eshelman’s attorneys maintain, are billions of dollars in private property value that could be lost if Skavdahl’s ruling stands.”
OK…but if you are rich and you can isolate a large parcel of “public land” so no one can access it except you, then there are billions of dollars in public land that you as a rich person, corporation, whatever have effectively just turned into private land AND, you get it for free and have to pay nothing for it, no taxes, zero, nada and the “public” will defacto never have access to it again. So, there are different ways to look at this. My goodness, you’d think someone gored your ox the way you go on when all they did was pass by him…
What’s wrong with this picture? And what is the underlying motivation for all of this? Well, for hunters and hikers, they obviously simply want access to “PUBLIC LANDS” and do NOT want to violate your private property rights. If they jump a corner, what have they done that is so egregiously horrible? What did they fly through the air that a few seconds ago was wafting over your land?
I’m sorry, no legalese is going to cover up the greed, wealth, hubris and ego that is behind all of the machinations.
Absolutely agreed a loss of value not explained is as I see it …they can no longer claim exclusive access to the public land that lies inside their private property as a a selling point…. it would be just the actual private property they own … simply greed and entitlement
Do landowners have the right to prevent the general public from trespassing on their land? Absolutely, with out a doubt. The real question here is, does the public have the right to access the land they pay for. Absolutely. If land barons want to monopolies that land then they can pay for it.
I agree with the landowner. Already talking about using ATVs & four wheelers. I grew up in the country by the river. We made our own 3 wheeler & ATV trails. From my perspective , He will see his property trashed out & huge 4 wheeler trails.. Usually beer cans & trash every where. I wish this man the very best
There are federal laws already in place about it being unlawful for driving off road, that would still be the case. This would be limited to foot traffic whether that be by human or animal.
So, you are going to lift that ATV over the corner fencing? More power to you, but me thinks ATVs out of bounds here. BLM should build the corner crossings as part of their mission to keep public lands accessible to the public.
I see three possible solutions to this problem. First, if the land is worth billions to these ranchers, they should have no problem leasing the land at $100 per month per acre,. A section is 640 acres, that would bring in about $768,000 per section. Second, all landlocked public land can be exchanged acre for acre and consolidated at the edge of the ranchers property. If there are several ranches in the area, they could be consolidated into even bigger areas, each ranch exchanging the public land within its boundaries for land at the edge of the property. There would not longer be public land within any ranch as it would all be exchanged acre for acre. To provide access, a corridor of land could be set up to accommodate roads leading to the consolidated public land. Finally, all public land within a ranch could be consolidated into one large area and a road consisting of public property could be built leading to the public land with necessary easements so no trespassing would take place. I think an exchange of acre for acre and consolidating them would be best but any one of these ideas is better than the current situation.
WAKE UP public land advocates. Our Federal Government is taking it ALL away, from ALL of us……Rock Springs draft RMP !!
Just a bitter old man that perceives himself to be a king.
In Oregon I’ve seen the state take land and call it public domain and give small $ for it. Seems like a crossing ladder better than a road. But the again give someone on inch….
You don’t understand the law. The boundary goes from the ground straight up to infinity. If you reach across, you are trespassing. Anotherwards it includes airspace above the ground. If you shoot and a bullet enters the airspace, it is trespassing.
So you are telling me that I can’t fly a plane anywhere. Because I would be trespassing
That’s simply not true. If you walk down a sidewalk and put your hand over someone’s lawn, you’re not trespassing. It’s been cited in court.
I just read some of the posts and corner crossing is not walking through someone’s house!!!
Although I do agree with the statement of WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT OWN LAND!!!
Under the constitution the only land the Federal Government is supposed to own is the land set aside in Washinton DC.
I like that important pieces of land that played important parts in our countries history are being preserved like the Civil Was, French Indian War, Revolutionary War are being preserved. Both I an not a fan of the the BLM land that is throughout the midwest and southwest and west coast.
Yellowstone, Glacier National Park, Grand Canyon, Yosemite and all the other national parks or National forest land, all those parks should be being supervised by the states that the park is in because that land belongs to those states not the federal government.
I wish I owned a huge piece of land and had the income to turn it into a place like a Dude Ranch. But make it for people who don’t have the money to go to a state park or national park because they can’t afford to go. If I could find wealthy people to help support the ranch to let kids and people with disabilities to come and ride horses and see what living life on a ranch is like. To see how beautiful our country is outside of the neighborhood the city kids live in.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the rich guy fighting to stop 4 hunters from stepping on his corner would use some of the money he has made to help lift up some poor kids lives to come out Wyoming or Montana and give these young kids an experience they would remember for the rest of their lives.
If I ever hit the lottery for hundreds of millions of dollars that would be number one on my list of things to do. Buy a thousand acres and build a place that 40 or 50 people could come to and ride horses and see what life on a Ranch is like. Have the kids help with the chores and every one gets together for breakfast and dinner. Show the kids how to brush, water and feed the horses.
It really is a shame all the billionaires and mega millionaires are so tunnel focused on me, me, me!!!!
Don’t you dare step on my property no, no, no not one foot on that land I own.
I hope the Billionaires and multimillionaires appreciate all the sacrifices the poor people in the military make so they have the opportunity to be so blessed to have so much.
But I know they are not grateful, if they were grateful they wouldn’t be blocking people from stepping one foot on one square foot of their property!!!
All property of the Louisiana purchase belonged to the federal government. How did it become checkerboard is a better question. I’ll assume (bad but, I’m not taking the time to research a history of land transactions) that someone bought several small parcels that wrapped around unsold federal property and turned it into a large ranch. Probably just like all the western movies were the bad rancher isolated the small framer until he had to sell 🤠. However, the parcels shouldn’t have been able to be combined without the purchase of all landlocked federal land. But land agents can be bought / corerse. Bottom line it’s about time the issue is being brought to a head.
These ranchers finally admitted what the public has known foevyears. It’s all about the dollars and the hell with the public. If it were not for the public buying their beef. Lamb, leather or wool they would not own these public ranches. I am glad theyare finally be held exposed for the welfare hogs they are.
But Ranch has finally admitted what the public has known forever. It may cost them money, but the value of allowing the public to access this will far outweigh whatever it cost them. If it weren’t for the public buying their beef and their lamb and their leather and their wool they would not own those trophy ranches. I am more than happy to see them finally brought to task on what they’ve been doing which is illegal for years keeping the public out of the public lands
Hi, I am a retired Navy Seabee. I honorably served my country for 17 years. I volunteered to protect my brother and sisters constitutional rights!!!
I see two issues here. 1. No land owner should be able to stop people from stepping across the corner of their property to get to public land, as every tax paying citizen in that county, state or federal public property belongs to the tax payers.
The US Supreme Court should rule no land owner can block access for people to get to the public land. Each state legislature should pass laws stating that at the corners of all that are abutting up to public properties must have a public easement just like they have for property owners that live in towns and cities that allows the county, city or state to widen a street or roadway. Or for running of Electrical power poles.
It’s sad that land owners feels they have a right to block people from accessing public land. The owner who is going to court owns a very large piece of land that is up against a very large public land and if he gets his way the public land ends up being his private land too. He gets to use and enjoy the public land but no one else gets to use that public land.
If I owned a big piece of land I would not care if people stepped across the corner of my land to get from one piece of public land to another piece of public land. I’m 67 years old and over the last 50 years of my life I have seen a big decline in people being kind to their fellow citizens. As long as people didn’t tear down my fences, or throw their trash on my land or harassed my livestock it wouldn’t bother me if the stepped on my property.
2. If the land owners are so worried about people stepping on their property as they try to get from one piece of public property to another piece of public property the two private property owners who at the corner of the properties should have to have their border fences leave a 5 foot wide strip for people to pass through the corner and if there is no fence the private land owners should have to have a 5 foot high survey pole marking the intersection of the 4 corners so that people can not step on their property as they pass the corner.
I’m not a hunter but land owners who try and block people from having access to public land need to get some counseling on how to be a more relaxed neighbor!!
Maybe corner crossing should be clearly marked showing public and private. It’s in the middle of the section for God’s sake. To step across a corner should not be considered trespass. If public ground is kity corner to private ground. If a hunter is doing all that footwork to hunt public to avoid paying such exorbitant prices to hunt privately owned hunting camps. More power to them. I own land and I love hunting. And if I want to hunt public land , I have to walk and carry out any big game I harvest. Corner crossing can be controlled if the state would do a better job marking the center of these sections of land. All hunters should be allowed to hunt public land, and not be bullied and intimidated by these private entities. Their land isn’t being devalued. Their pockets are because their losing perspective clients. My South Dakota opinion.
Will those who want to utilize the public land while coming across private land be able to keep it in the condition they found it? What if something happens to them while crossing into public, who is going to be responsible or the one you get sued. Hunters carry guns and kill animals that will need to be field dressed before being carried out. Motor vehicles will most likely be brought in or horses.
It’s not about access as much as it is responsibility for both sides. Rancher now has to know when access is taking place so as not to shoot trespassing hunters and recreation people. Rancher has to give up his land, holds liability and public has the opportunity to cause damage to private land as they gain access. This isn’t a state funded park with rules, regulations and the ability to enforce should things go arwy.
If they open up a precedent here then all states will be in jeopardy of creating new state entities/facilities to protect the land and land owners from misuse of their land and the public land. It’s not about being rich but the use of the public land, who can access, provision of it done legally with current laws not loopholes from the past. The liability is fully on the Rancher and the recreation of public land that is landlocked will need to become park status. Do they allow hunting in state or public land?
It’s 100 percent about access.
Why all the comments on the net worth of someone?
Because we are living in a society today where everyone is more jealous and envious of what others have than ever before. Social media and the digital age has made a forum for people and/or the press to put their pretend happy lives and wealth on display easily for all to see and envy. Good or bad it’s reality and people want what others have.. they always have… they always will.
Why does the Government own any land?
All property of the Louisiana purchase belonged to the federal government. How did it become checkerboard is a better question. I’ll assume (bad but, I’m not taking the time to research a history of land transactions) that someone bought several small parcels that wrapped around unsold federal property and turned it into a large ranch. Probably just like all the western movies were the bad rancher isolated the small farmer until he had to sell 🤠. However, the parcels shouldn’t have been able to be combined without the purchase of all landlocked federal land. But land agents can be bought / corerse. Bottom line it’s about time the issue is being brought to a head.
The government also gets land through tax defaults, you thought you owned your house didn’t you, stop paying your rent/tax see what happens.
Not one dissenting comment?
I would certainly rather the government (people) own the land then current scam using taxpayers to fund the farm welfare aid we have now. Every year we pay billions of dollars to the wealthy land owners who did nothing but inherit everything they have. They have put the land into trusts so that when it’s time to go to the doctor, or the nursing home,they don’t have to pay anything because, on paper, they have no money. So the poorest among us get to pay all the taxes to take care of them in their old age. These are things the average people will never have enough to bother doing this. Then with farmer welfare, the amount of payments from the farm bill (welfare), land owners never loose. You can see how much money each operation gets on government website because it’s your tax dollars paying them. So, we pay them every time there is drought, and they can’t feed the cows because they ran too many head on the land and over grazed the year before. Most of it’s just poor Management, which you will always get because they’re never punished for being a poor operator with taxpayer funded welfare for people who will always have way more then most. They get to write everything off under the sun, which allows them to show no income. So we pay millions of dollars so they can keep the so-called family farm, and they keep us out with a $.25 poster. If they’re going to accept tax payer dollars, the land should be open to the public, and if they don’t like it, don’t take the taxpayer dollars. It boils down to millionaire land owners, which in most places 1000acres is worth a million dollars, getting taxpayer payments and fleecing the guy who makes $30000/year. Total joke. If taxpayers have to pay for these farm operations, keep funding them because they can’t make it, why don’t they have to pay anything back when it’s sold, or the owner and taxpayer welfare recipient dies. The way the whole thing set up is a joke. Once your in the system, you get access to low interest loans the average guy can not get. They get to rent the government land that you can not rent unless you are a rancher and then they use the inability to access land to be the only bidder so they get it for the minimum bid of $2/acre and rip the taxpayers off again. Another farce. Why doesn’t the land go to the highest bidder, like everything else? There is no such thing as a family farm anymore. In my area, there’s a couple people that have Bodwell all the land, which means there’s no new families coming into the area and putting kids in the school system. And then they use South Africans to do all their work, because they don’t have to pay them anything , which drives down wages for people who have to live here and can run back to their real country with a pocket full of American money. We’re all being born into a world that the only place you can be is on asphalt or concrete.
Wow. I’m a 5th generation farmer that was just a young man when we had to sell our land here in Kansas because we couldn’t afford to keep going. We weren’t rich by any means and had to rely on other sources of income just to pay the bills. It was gut wrenching to watch that land go that your ancestors gave everything they had for. Don’t assume everyone is rich and entitled like the bloke this article is written about. I have moved on and since made a very good living. I still yearn for that farm every day.
These rich people just want to control everything.
Let them take just the corners of the property by eminent domain !! Damn billionaires think they can buy everything and keep the public out !!
Public land is exactly that – PUBLIC.
One way or another the public is paying for all public land via government fees and/or taxes and should have clear and unimpeded entry to every single acre of public land in the USA.
The thought argument that it reduces the private property value is completely bogus!
The value of private property is for strictly that which is PRIVATE, and can not be considered more valuable simply because the private property owner can lock out others from hundreds, or even thousands of acres of additional public land that he can then consider his own private playground.
This is such an obvious attempt of the ultra-wealthy to hoard more for themselves, disregarding us little people that own little, if any property, and just want to recreate on property that is rightfully ours to use, without overcrowding other public properties that are not monopolized by these ultra-wealthy glutons.
Why is this so hard for the courts to see?
Any landlocked corner to public property should have at least a public right of way – at least avfoot path to access that public land, without need for any ladder or specialized equipment to facilitate access to property that is rightfully our to use and enjoy.
Should I be allowed to walk through your house to get where I’m going?
That’s not what this is about John. Should we shut down all flights because the violate the airspace over private property?
Guess if it was built on a corner as the the billionaires ranch checkerboard, you could plead your case in court. Bet I’d lose, because I don’t have deep enough pockets to purchase my way as the rich ranchers.
So I guess you could, after you lined a few pockets, as I’m sure is going on right now.
If your house is on public land, then yes.
Tell all the landowners that public land is to be used by the public. For them to keep out yhe public is illegal as far as I’m concerned. Tell them to sell their place to the state and move to California. It’s greed.
It’s not private land. It is public land and you landowners have been using it as such. I for one have no compassion for your perceived loss of value. The land belongs to the public. Stop crying about a loss that was never yours to begin with.
Eshelman has done more for public access than the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy combined. Ironically, he will also be the reason that opens more hunting access than the WG&F and RMEF.
Now if only we could get him to focus on stream access in Wyoming.
the Nature Conservancy = public land access? Seriously? the Nature Conservancy leverages massive Federal grants and cost shares to control vast tracts of land. In fact, Nature Conservancy property should be defacto public access with all of the Federal money they’ve weaseled away.
Exactly my point. People donate large sums of money and time to these organizations without understanding there main goal is to have access limited, unless you’re a large contributor, then access is used as a fundraiser. Living next to a large Nature Conservancy project has been an eye opener.
If a hunter places a step ladder across the corner of 2 adjoining pieces of public land, how is that trespassing? Would it be trespassing if he hired a helicopter to access the public land? I think not. The private land owner’s claim of diminished value is bogus. Just another case of the haves versus the have-nots.
It’s all gonna come down to money. Ranch owners have a strong lobby, wealthy land owners keep expensive attorneys, and policy makers of all levels of government are sensitive to that.
Public land is public. The issue seems to be how wide is the access at the corner. I’d say if you can step over the corner, then you’ve caused no harm to any private property. And if the property line extends into the stratosphere, then airlines are trespassing too. Just let us step over.
Corner crossing returns to the American people what is rightfully theirs.
I would guess the people arguing to let the hunters cross don’t own a single piece of land. I owe about 250 acres adjoining Government land in Texas and trespassing is a big deal to me. I have installed fencing and cameras and have prosecute to the full extent of the law.
Texas is not a “BLM” state with a “checkerboard” pattern of intermingled public and private land parcels. In fact, a unique provision in its agreement with the United States permitted Texas to retain title to ALL of its public lands when it entered the Union in February of 1846!! Consequently, only 1.9% of Texas has since become “federalized” through federal land purchases. Wyoming, on the other hand, was brought directly under federal control by The Louisiana Purchase, a treaty with Great Britain, and a treaty with Mexico. In other words, ALL of Wyoming was acquired by the United States Government with only 57.7% subsequently transferred into private holdings through various “patent laws” passed by the U.S. Congress! 42.3% of Wyoming remains under federal control. (Texas has very little public land of any sort!)
Corner Crossing is “ NOT TRESPASSING”
Its PUBLIC LAND — GET IT — PUBLIC LAND — PERIOD !!
Oh , And I also own numerous acres and I don’t abide trespassing either — ON LAND I OWN !!!
Steven, I’m a land owner & this case pisses me off! BLM land is owned by the US taxpayers. This case is simply about a private land owner wishing to prevent access to public land. I think of it as, if I have the livestock grazing rights to this BLM section of land, but my neighbor, the private landowner, is grazing the land as it is his own. Taking from me what I have paid for to use. This case has nothing to do with an individual willfully trespassing onto private property.
I grew up in the Elk Mountain area, it has long been a dispute about corner crossing before present ownership arrived, it was wrong then and is wrong now, it is public land and should be treated as such, property owners are claiming rights to the entire mountain but paying taxes on only their property
This right of property owners to block innocent passage is a hold over from the rights of kings from Europe. Almost all of Europe has enacted right to roam laws. Large property owners are not allowed to block the public from crossing land and in many cases hunt, fish and gather firewood. In this case it illegal under federal law to block access to public land. To block access to land that the public has a right to use is theft of public land that should be prosecuted as any theft of public land should be. This claim of loss of property value this landowner is claiming is simply the theft of the usage of public land.
Billions in property value that rightfully belongs to the public.
Amazing! Is it not trespass if one doesn’t walk-on private property? The quote from the Iron Bar Holdings “But landowners do have the right to prevent the public from trespassing on their property, and that is the only right that [Eshelman’s ranch-holding company] Iron Bar has ever asserted,” establishing physical trespass envolves stepping on the private property in question? Property owners do own the ground but not the air above. Jets flying over, planes flying over is not trespass and is ludicrous to say so.
The loss of value is value that they nerver had a right to in the first place. Checker board property give them a TWO FOR FOR THE PRICE ONE bonus for the owner and a loss of tax revenue for the public. Again, you can’t lose something one never had in the first place.
That is right! Billions of dollars of property value with zero tax revenue to support local governments. Heck of a deal. Public land is owned by the public. It is about time the public are allowed to access it.
Public land must have access or it becomes private land for free!
All land must have an access right of way! Both sides need to sit down and do the right thing! You can not decrease value if the property is not yours but you are blocking access! That would be private theft of public land!
Wow, can smell the Eshelman desperation all away across the State. Dude’s gonna need some sedatives and luckily, since he’s a pharma-baron, can get some Quaaludes on the cheap. Meanwhile, I predict Fred will lose this appeal too, once again fire his legal staff (who will probably then be hired by the Wyoming Attorney General) and try again at SCOTUS “if” they would even hear the case. In the end, the public will prevail and the rich robber barons and the welfare wyoming stockgrowers cartel alike will shudder in unison and reminisce about the what ifs and look back fondly in time when they once thought they were in control
So, let me get this straight. The land barons want exclusive use of public property without paying for it and in the process, criminalize the public use of said property?
There should be no such thing as inaccessible public land!! Provisions should be made for public access and it should be the property owners responsibility to facilitate access to ANY landlocked public property! I mean truck size access!
Problem solved!
It’s time for Congress to clarify this issue and consider management authority to control usage to protect the land.
But given the obvious inability to even pass immigration legislation, there is no reason to believe anything of value would not be politicized and never approved.
We enjoy the government produced by the people we elect.
They had this same issue in the 1800’s with the criss crossing of cattle and sheep grazing on the same land, where sheep ruins grazing land over
Yes you so right a truck size lane would solve this problem but seems greed is more important then progress in America
Think if all landowners done this in the 1800’s denied land access
We would not have a Nation. Qqqqq cows
What a mess.
Name: Randy Boggess. I was born and raised in the Mountain West and grew up hunting across a broad range of properties ‘with permission’ as ranchers saw good conservation as a critical factor in sound wildlife and range management. So many of our ranches are now owned by wealthy out of staters who have industrialized hunting through outfitting and depend on total lock out to school sections and BLM lands by making corner crossings illegal to increase herds. These power moves have made it impossible for legal residents to access public lands and confine them to overcrowded public lands that push even more game onto private lands because of pressure. These large land owners need to come to the table and work with the public towards a middle ground that works for both. A Pharma businessman from North Carolin should not be transforming our culture out here and neither should others like the Wilkes Brother, and other billion dollar conglomerates. Our way of life is dying.
Isn’t that fraud? Claiming value to add to your net wealth. Yet not owning it—.that is fraud in my book
I think there’s a criminal case in New York right now about this. If you can prosecute one man for overvalued property, you should do it for all.
Unless, there’s 2 different justice systems……….
I read the whole brief and Iron Bar’s entire argument is outlined in their second sentence: Everybody agrees that corner-crossing is illegal under Wyoming trespass law. Period. Without question. They say all of the defendants admit they “trespassed” under Wyoming law…..but, if it is so clearly, plainly, no-questions asked illegal why did the jury acquit the hunters of trespassing? Because it’s not clear. That’s the whole point. No state specifically says corner crossing is trespassing. And given the chance to specifically add “corner crossing” in Wyoming law, the legislature has refused.
Everybody agrees that Corner Crossing is Illegal under WY State Law? What gives you that idea? The federal judge said it isn’t, the hunters were found not guilty. Corner Crossing is most definitely LEGAL under WY State Law.
Yep. Read the WY law.
When the government gave the railroad every other section, I think it was mostly public land. So, they weren’t taking anything from private ownership then. And, as was pointed out, Wyoming wasn’t a state. One judge in his ruling back then said that those who acquired property after that knew it was checkerboard and about the enlawful enclosures act that forbid them to enclose public lands.
UFF DA!!! Several arguments which seem to be missing from the court filing. One, Wyoming was not a state at the time the UIA was passed in 1885. Two, Eshelman’s argument that corner crossing would affect billions of dollars in property value and millions of acres of land, is a multi-state issue not an issue limited to Wyoming – doesn’t that automatically make it a Federal issue since it crosses the boundaries of many states??? Three, Wyoming is still an open range state meaning private property owners must fence out cattle in the large pastures which are common across Wyoming – the fence out requirement was intended for keeping cattle off of private land in large pastures of mixed ownership – but how about people??? It seems that restriction of people is primarily by trespass law not so much as by fencing law; however, if one wants to clearly exclude the public from private land, fence them out. It seems Wyoming’s “fence out” requirement applies to people as much as cattle.
““Corner crossing is a civil trespass under Wyoming Law,” and an 1885 federal prohibition against blocking passage to public land does not override the state’s statute, the ranch owner at the center of a closely watched suit claimed in legal papers filed Friday.”
“Corner crossing is trespassing under Wyoming law, and federal law doesn’t authorize corner crossing or preempt Wyoming’s trespass statute, Eshelman argues.”
The 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act pre-dates Wyoming statehood (1890). So from a precedent perspective, this is worth thinking about.
It’s public land that ranch owners don’t pay property tax on, but claim the public doesn’t legally have a right to access unless they access it by aircraft. This is nothing but extreme greed. The law should allow for an easement thru the corners of private property for public access to publicly owned parcels.
According to the property owners, flying over the corner to access public land would also be trespassing! 😡 Their whole argument is the hunters trespassed because their body was in “their” air space.
This is getting amusing and I sense complete and utter desperation from the billionaire team. I do have a question : if these billionaires are claiming billions of dollar of private property value “loss”…were they paying taxes on the public lands entrenched within these checkerboarded estates? If the private lands are worth billions, then shouldn’t the public lands be worth billions? You don’t pay taxes on something yet you think you own and have absolute control of these public pieces. Geez, you’d think that the waaaaaaaaay below market $1.35 a month to graze a cow & calf plus all the free outfitting on public lands would of been enough. Regardless, a hornet’s nest has been kicked and the swarm (american public) is going to get bigger and nastier
So he claims he’s not preventing access to public land yet how else are people to get there? Fly in with helicopter (which has been done)? How low can the helo then fly over his property before THAT is considered trespass according to him? No, this is simply someone that was able to get twice as much land for what he purchased and pays taxes on and now that the gig is up, he’s upset.
Federal transportation laws take precedent.
Public lands is public lands that have public right away easements and access.
I was hired to spray public land next to the elk mountain ranch to kill the sage brush so the elk would graze there .The ranch gets paid for elk feeding on ranch property.