Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman has stated in just-filed court papers why he believes four Missouri hunters who stepped from public land to public land, over a corner of his Carbon County property in 2021 are guilty of trespass and should pay him $7.75 million or more in damages.
“Our position is that we should have control over who crosses the private land,” Eshelman said, according to a transcript of a deposition. That “private land” includes the airspace above his ranch, he clarified in an answer to a follow-up question posed by one of the hunters’ lawyers.
Last week’s court filings are part of Eshelman’s federal civil lawsuit against Bradly Cape, Phillip Yeomans, John Slowensky and Zachary Smith alleging they caused millions in damages without setting foot on his ranch.
The federal civil case follows a Carbon County criminal case in which a jury of the hunters’ peers last year found them not guilty of criminal trespass or trespass to hunt.
Elk Mountain Ranch covers 22,042 acres and enmeshes thousands of additional acres of public land in a checkerboard pattern of ownership. The hunters contend they have a right to corner cross — step from public parcel to public parcel at the common corners with two adjacent private properties — if they don’t step on the private land.
The men hunted on some 3,000 acres of public land on Elk Mountain, killing two elk and a deer in 2021. But they illegally trespassed to reach that public land by passing through airspace at the edge of his property, Eshelman’s civil suit claims.
Attorneys for each side filed Eshelman’s and the hunters’ depositions along with requests that Chief Judge Scott Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court in Wyoming rule in their favor without going to trial.
Eshelman wants the judge to declare that the hunters trespassed, then leave it for a jury to determine later how much they should pay in damages.
“It’s physically impossible to cross without being in our airspace.”
Fred Eshelman
The hunters want the civil suit dismissed completely. Among other arguments, they assert that the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 prevents landowners in the West from fencing others out of public land or using threats and intimidation toward that end.
The parties filed their motions for partial summary judgment and summary judgment in the Casper court last week.
A policy of confrontation
In the 33-page deposition transcript, Eshelman described his policy of confronting “suspected trespassers” including corner crossers, and erecting signs in an effort to dissuade people from going onto public land by corner crossing.
Eshelman described his unwritten policy and practice for ranch employees to “have an interaction with … a discourse…” with suspected trespassers, including corner-crossers, and to “ask them to leave.”
Hunters’ attorneys asked repeatedly about such interactions, calling them confrontations.
“I don’t know if ‘confronted’ is the word I want to use,” Eshelman said, “because that sounds a little bit too strong.”
The hunters filed statements with a Wyoming Game and Fish warden saying that the ranch property manager harassed them and scared off game while they hunted on public land after corner crossing.
If suspected trespassers did not leave Elk Mountain Ranch or enmeshed public land after being contacted, employees were told to call law enforcement. That included Wyoming Game and Fish wardens or the sheriff.
Game wardens and sheriff’s deputies declined to cite the hunters for trespassing in 2020 and initially in 2021, despite Elk Mountain Ranch employees’ complaints.
Eshelman’s unwritten policy called on employees in 2021 to continue to contact law enforcement, even after agencies said they would not cite the hunters.
The ranch kept the pressure up for citations “because we thought they [wardens and deputies] were wrong,” Eshelman said. “And they stated something that was patently not true.”
When law enforcement says corner crossing does not constitute trespass, “they have absolutely no basis for that statement,” Eshelman stated. “None.”
The policy of repeated contact with law officials worked in 2021, Eshelman said, “because after that, of course, [sheriff’s deputies] did,” cite Cape, Yeomans, Slowensky and Smith after being instructed to do so by former Carbon County Prosecutor Ashley Mayfield Davis.
A Carbon County jury last year found the four not guilty of criminal trespass or trespassing to hunt in the separate criminal case.
Signs and airspace
The hunters’ claim that they never touched ranch land appears to remain undisputed. They described how they used the GPS mapping app onX to locate surveyed section corner monuments, then stepped over them.
“Did you put your foot on what you believe to be private property?” Eshelman’s attorney asked Cape about one corner he crossed several times.
“No,” Cape answered.
The checkerboard pattern of ownership on Eshelman’s Elk Mountain Ranch stems from the 1800s when the federal government granted every other mile-by-mile section along a 40-mile wide swath across Wyoming to railroad builders. Most of the public checkerboard parcels are managed by the federal U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or the state of Wyoming as school trust lands.
Neither legislation, lawsuits nor criminal cases have settled the corner-crossing issue, which has implications for accessing 8.3 million acres of “corner-locked” public land across the West.
Eshelman bought the Elk Mountain Ranch in 2005 under the belief that he could control access to all the public land it enmeshed.
“When I bought the ranches, [Eshelman bought and sold several ranches in the area around that time] I was assured that corner crossing was illegal,” Eshelman said. “I went to BLM websites, and it said definitively, corner crossing is illegal.”
Eshelman hunts on the ranch, invites friends to do so and allows a veterans’ group on the property. He opens a relatively small portion of the ranch north of Elk Mountain to Access Yes, a Wyoming Game and Fish hunting program that allows a controlled number of public hunters on the land.
One year Eshelman allowed a group from Florida to hunt on the ranch, even though he “didn’t know them from Adam’s housecat,” he said in the deposition.
Trespassing at the ranch, including corner crossing, increased starting in 2010, Eshelman said. So a ranch employee installed two fence posts — chained together and each supporting no-trespassing signs — on separate but adjacent ranch parcels at one four-parcel corner near a public road.
“[The signs are] saying to the hunting public … [i]f you cross right here, it’s illegal, you’re trespassing on private land,” Eshelman stated in the deposition. The signs “were there to prevent the public from crossing private property to access those sections.”
Eshelman agreed that when he said “private land” he included the airspace above it. He couldn’t say how his ranch-owning company, Iron Bar Holdings, determined what airspace at common corners belongs to the ranch or what belongs to the public.
“I don’t have any idea,” how to determine that, he said. “[T]hat goes to statute and practice or BLM regulations whatever it is,” he said. “And this is, as you know, donkeys years old.”
At the common corner, Eshelman said, “it’s physically impossible to cross without being in our airspace.”
The suit claims the corner-crossers devalued the Elk Mountain Ranch by $7.75 million and that damages could be as high as $9.4 million.
Sounds like Eshelman owes Wyoming and Wyoming hunters damages in the amount of 14% of $9 million ( public land percentage ) of what he says damages are…..each year since Eshelman owned his ranch!
There’s an update to the lawsuit. The land owner has lost yet again. His last resort is SCOTUS and that’s only IF they choose to hear it.
Do a land swap, remove the checkerboard, make solid continuous blocks of public land and solid continuous blocks of private land. If that is the old Palm Ranch, They would allow about anyone that asked to hunt. The hunters were all locals. I hunted with my Dad there as a little kid in the 1950’s and 60’s
This seems plausible to me.
I’m all for private land ownership, but blocking access to public land has got to stop. Would Mr. Eschelman rather the government use eminent domain to secure access or take it all, to create more public land, as the current administration has been doing?
Start with Carbon County opening up eminent domain proceedings to build public roads across Elk Mountain Ranch to access the public lands. The owner is stating clearly that the number of people trying to access the public land is causing damage to HIS property. A public road will keep the public off his land.
Wyoming should immediately reassess the tax liability on his land and raise it to the value claimed by the owner.
Finally, let Federal Court throw out his lawsuit as it is illegal to block access to public land.
There is no Public Land that should be land lock!! If the rancher wants to graze the land for little to nothing, yet tell people who can be there and who can’t is wrong. There has to be a way for the public in and out. This is not wyomings call this is federal land.All people in United States of America own it!!!
As an increasingly ardent supporter of private property rights, I would LIKE to support Eshelman’s position. I am also an avid user of public property and support access both in advocacy and financially through various means.
I am often at odds with my own groups where roads are concerned as they pass through private land. This is because the managing agencies generally do little to support the landowner in maintaining private access to public space, but there are programs for it.
All I can say that in this instance, I believe Eshelman is in the wrong. Stepping over a corner is such a grey area that enforcement from either side is useless. For starters, there are generally no rights to the airspace. Secondly, there is ALWAYS question as to the correct placement of a survey monument. No two surveyors will place it the same, but historical position does have bearing, pun intended.
As much as it pains me personally, as the agencies involved, I would condemn and create an easement at this corner for access. 0.0002295 Acres (10-foot right triangle) out of 22,000-plus is hardly damaging. The smart, and I believe easy, thing for Eshelman is to allow access through the many programs out there and get paid for a crossing point.
He lost, rightfully so. It seems as if he’s trying to maintain control of public lands, paid for and maintained with tax dollars, as if it were his own, like he’s trying to strong arm average citizens. I’ve heard that he’s controlled that public land for many years and doesn’t like that people are finally standing up to him and taking back their rights to the public land. Corner meeting corner shouldn’t even necessitate a ladder to cross. Stepping over should be sufficient to be considered not trespassing, but the reality is, most sane and rational (re: non-petty) people would allow people to corner cross over their land if the land is that vast. The scale of the land makes this quite different than someone corner crossing over small acreages.
Plaintiff is wrong to assert he owns the private land on which defendants trespass when plaintiff in fact alleges he owns the private air circulating over his private land. Circulating is the operative word, dismissing his complaint into thin air. Summary judgment for the defendant hunters.
“The men hunted on some 3,000 acres of public land on Elk Mountain, killing two elk and a deer in 2021. But they illegally trespassed to reach that public land by passing through airspace at the edge of his property, Eshelman’s civil suit claims.”
OK, I have no strong opinion on this civil suit one way or the other. But I am curious to know just how those hunters got those 2 Elk and 1 deer off of public land. Must have been some other access available to them that was an easier egress than climbing a ladder over property corners.
Not necessarily BJ, when we go to Colorado every 5 years or so, if we harvest an animal, we field dress it right where it expires or as close to that area as possible. We only take the meat (80% deboned), antlers, and legally necessary parts of animal for ID or testing. The rest is left for the predators and scavengers. That drops the weight to just a couple hundred pounds for elk, or 80-120 for whitetail, easily manageable by a group of (in shape – not me!) hunters. It’s still difficult but much easier than hauling a full carcass!!
By claiming he lost that 7.7 million he is saying the quiet part out loud: he is putting a number on the public land as if it were his own. He is essentially claiming that he owned that land. The public should sue him for an unlawful taking.
Fredric N Eshelman – Net Worth and Insider Trading
Fredric N Eshelman Net Worth
The estimated net worth of Fredric N Eshelman is at least $192 Million dollars as of 2023-04-22. Fredric N Eshelman is the Executive Chairman of The Medicines Co and owns about 2,072,920 shares of The Medicines Co (MDCO) stock worth over $176 Million. Fredric N Eshelman is the Director, 10% Owner of G1 Therapeutics Inc and owns about 3,689,151 shares of G1 Therapeutics Inc (GTHX) stock worth over $10 Million. Fredric N Eshelman is also the Director, 10% Owner of Eyenovia Inc and owns about 1,273,428 shares of Eyenovia Inc (EYEN) stock worth over $6 Million. Details can be seen in Fredric N Eshelman’s Latest Holdings Summary section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Don’t be fooled by this guy! This guy is a PREDATOR! As for me, I had to roll up my sleeves and EARN all my money, usually for somewhat above minimum wage, and I payed off most of my student loans already too, but for this guy, all he is good for is to taking advantage of other entities in order to make his EASY money.
Morally speaking, I don’t think that a guy like this belongs in the beautiful country land of Wyoming, but that is only my opinion, because by HIS opinion, “Might Is Right”, and there is where all his “morals” stand. Yup, he’ll do just about ANYTHING just because he CAN, no remorse, no concern, no mercy in the least, just greed for MORE, (like as in suing these innocent hunters) because power is his only moral in life so he gets away with causing all the strife. THIS is his way. Dont be fooled by the sweet fronts this crooks puts on! Taking advantage of others and using leverage against others, insider trading, suing innocent hunters for climbing a fence, THIS is how this “wonderful loving guy” makes all his EASY MONEY! He is a blood sucker and knows all the moves.
I’ve hunted for over 60 years. Although i understand the hunter’s position, Mr. Eshelman is correct. They cannot access that public land without crossing his.
It’s really pretty obvious.
hunters crossed his property? what are you talking about? what’s obvious is that they never set foot on eshelman’s property.
So can he sue every airline that flies over his property? If they are in the air above his property he should be able to sue right? Or does his air property end at some arbitrary number of feet above the ground?
So by that logic the BLM (public land) is forever locked up? The Feds can’t access it? The Public can’t access it?
Nonsense; when you segregate off a piece of property and transfer it to another, and you own all the property surrounding the parcel you just sold, you are implying to the grantee (buyer) that they have use and access to the property you just sold them. It’s called an “Implied easement”. Similarly, when the Federal Government disposed of every other section, resulting in a checker-board ownership situation, the Feds (we the people) did not box ourselves out of accessing the remaining public lands. That would be ridiculous.
How about charging Eshelman the going rate a private acreage owner would charge if they paid to lease private land? He gets a fantastic deal on the public lands. Make him pay the same taxes on the land he leases just like private owners have to pay on top of what he pays for public leases. Eshelman is stealing public land as it his own.
Rick, you hit the nail right on the head! This guy only knows how to take advantage of others in order to make his money, take a close and careful look at his history, he is not the wonderful guy he makes himself out to be.
I think this is completely idiotic! Air space are you kidding me right now, no such thing,just like floating the rivers or creeks land on both sides is private but they don’t own the water and yes all of our public land should be accessible to the public period that guy needs to be fined 7.4 million!
Eshelman would indeed be out millions if corner crossing was legalized through a court ruling or legislative action. Look at any land brokerage, real estate site and see how ranches are marketed. A property listed at 22,000 acres may say 12,000 deeded and 9,000 leased. These sections of BLM land these guys were on fall under that leased land. Properties are marketed as if the buyer has ownership of the leased lands and anyone involved in these transactions thinks they do indeed have full control of the leased land. It is not just out of state land owners. Who knows if Fred Eshelman is even out of state maybe he has a Wyoming drivers license. There are lots of ranches that are owned by families that have been in Wyoming for a long time that would claim the same as Fred is. Just look at Magagna and the Wyoming Stock Growers position on this. You, as the voting public, keep electing people subservient to these wanna be feudal lords that think they own everything they touch.
Where did the other 1000 acres go?
I just don’t understand why with 22,000 acres it’s such a big deal ⁉️If anyone wanted to cross my property to get to the other side I couldn’t care Less if they were just passing through, and not Disturbing anything⁉️ Wyoming sounds like a REALLY ANAL state to live in‼️
If, as noted and if accurate; of FAA regs. that the US Government owns the airspace and of BLM regs. requiring a 3 foot right-of-way at markers — what is the argument; where is the case?
Air Rights? I may understand that concept in ultra Urban NYC, but rural Wyoming?
The rancher is asking for BLM to use Eminent Domain to create right of ways between landlocked public lands.
Seems to me , every Hunter in Wyoming should show up for a corner crossing party. Always a good day for a hike or picnic. Should prove a point. Love Wyoming.
Great Idea! The possibilities are endless. Go for it. Let Eshelman sue hundreds of WY hunters for legally accessing public lands.
Agreed
I think all public ground should have some kind of public access , other wise it is like 1 person can have thousands of for personal use.
I might have smashed this guys clay projects several times in the 4th grade art class and for this I am very sorry to everyone!
Maybe the rancher needs to go after bigger fish like airplanes from different airlines that fly over his air space. Lol
Run some of these out state land owners out the state. Some of the think the don’t have to obey the law.
The only devaluation. Is the fact he can’t charge outrageous fees to cross the private property. Ranchers that landlocke public land should pay property tax, since they make a ton of money charging or leasing public land out to guides for personal gains. Grazing fees are just pennies on the dollar for what they make in outfitters leases and charging to access public land. It’s out of control here in Wyoming. The rich get to make the rules. They all hate on x because they can’t hide behind a sign and bully people how ever they see fit.
How could they own the air space above their property. Does that mean an airplane can’t fly over there property.
Everyone who flies over it would be guilty of trespassing under his Eshelmans opinion. Its damn sure not right keep the owners of public land off of it! Eschelman should be paying restitution to the public he has denied access to their propertya
Hunters should absolutely be able to corner cross. And if not the land owner should not be able to farm or ranch the public sections.
I guess if you could float across that corner in a fishing boat you would not be trespassing? You can float through a private ranch in a float boat violating the airspace of that private property.
The purpose of originally breaking up the parcels was to keep that land in public trust and prevent private control. If the public can’t access public land then it isn’t public land. That’s why we all have easements for utilities, waterways, and other public access requirements. At the federal or State level, they need to establish a 10’ easement at the corners and be done. I appreciate and want to protect private land owner rights but this is stupid. Alternatively, the government should sue the ranch for anytime they crossed the public land on ranch business. If public can’t access public property, then the ranch shouldn’t be allowed to access ranch property.
I would like to know if I could get up there and hunt elk me and my wife are looking for a place to hunt them
This ranch owner is smoking some pretty good drugs to think he should get paid nearly 8 million dollars for damages these 4 hunters caused to his ranch. Eshelman, you are a joke!!! You give other ranchers a bad name. Grow up!!!
Owner of the ranch is a true jackass! Needs to be reminded we are all Americans and own the public lands – not just him!
The rancher should be paying the hunters the seven million. If that rancher wins it will destroy hunting. Let’s just hope the judge doesn’t get paid off.
Why not put up a toll post. Charge 50 a head and you already have the business licenses…
Mr. Eshelman fell prey to a lying real estate agency and his ego won’t allow him to admit it— so he’s lashing out at the commons and common citizen instead. The selfishness and entitlement displayed through his comments are unreal. An important reminder to support groups like Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership who are actually putting in the work to support these hunters and public lands access!
Ownership of air space? SHOW ME THE DEED. SHOW ME THE BILL OF SALE. This SCREAMS counter lawsuit with damages to every Wyoming state resident.
May I make a suggestion?
Have the state/county use Eminent Domain to establish public easements across the private lands.
Problem solved.
Does this mean that the airlines or any private airplane owner can not fly through his air space? Do they pay him to use his air space ? He thinks because he is wealthy he can do what he wants.
I have lived in Wyoming 64 years and it is time to stop private land owners from land locking public land. The public should be able to access any and all public land . We need to pull all grazing rights on public land this land should be up for bid every year for grazing rights so one person can’t control . Also I bet he is not paying taxes on what he thinks his land is worth. Nobody want to cross his private property they just want to use public land . He should be paying the public for keeping us out.$$$$ it is ours not his.I have been bullied in the past by ranch hands for no reason I was on public land. We need to pull together and stop this shit.
What an egotistical moron for thinking he has the right to keep hunters off BLM public land. Seriously get a life!
Didn’t I see that the judge has disallowed the testimony of the landowners appraiser? I think he ruled that the damages sought could not have been caused by the defendants. The damages he claims are supposed to be the loss of value of the ranch if corner crossing as done by the defendants is ok. It’s either ok or it’s not ok, but neither case is caused by the hunters.
Being a landowner from Nebraska, a western public land hunter and has family in Wyoming I want to comment on Mr. Eshelman’s civil suit.
My mind was made up in the paragraph in the article when he said he bought the property thinking he could control access to the public land inside his boundaries.
Right there he admitted to obstructing public access to land the public owns.
This suit needs to go to trial so common sense jurors can throw it it out and sue Mr. Eshelman for millions, then take that money and lobby your state officials to make common sense access to all of the public lands that are Checker boarded in your state. Good luck
Right on!
Hear, hear!!!
how can it be public land if the public can’t access it? nice to have land only you can use when it was not really paid for. the poor slob tax payer has the right to hunt BLM land, not all of witch is checker boarded with private land. but when the only access is across private land, it’s usually not a option for the Hunter/Tax payer. meanwhile up in the national forest, there is more cattle then game.
Not all publicly owned land can be accessed by the public, for example military bases and test ranges or a state highway maintenance yard are under government ownership, but closed to the general public. On the other hand, lands typically perceived to be owned by the public should be accessible to the public which owns those lands. Often, restrictions limit the accessibility (think of limitations on federal wilderness lands). Lands should not be off-limits to the public merely due to the technicality of the historical checkerboard ownership pattern.
I have hunted big game for 30years and these men did it legally and by the book. I’m sure they are law abiding men that serve their families and communities.
Mr. Eshelman is ridiculous and completely uncivil in his suit. Furthermore, he might think of more appropriate ways to bring decency and civility between between his common man.
Sounds like greedy land owners
Planes pass in my air space all the time
Public land is my land along with every tax payer.
Great article
The law imprisons man or women
Who steal the goose from off the commons
But turns the greater felon loose
Who steals the commons from the goose
Old English ditty
Of course you can expect this kind of bullying behavior from the fly in billionaires but, what about those sellout locals who work for and carry out the harassment orders from these rich folks? I’d like to ask these sellouts “how do you face yourself in the mirror” ??? Would you be so tough if we ran into each other in a bar or do you slink and hide from your neighbors when off duty?
The aptly named Mr. Eshel-man is the “front man” for part-time residents who purchase land in Wyoming then try to control adjacent, public owned surfaces as well. If he prevails in court, access to not just the ‘checkerboard’, but national forest lands which lie next to private holdings will be this elite group’s next target to prohibit ingress by Wyoming citizens and visitors.
Sublette County is seeing this unfold in the Upper Hoback where an out-of-state land owner hopes to swap private in-holdings for USFS managed public land. If this is accomplished, say with the assistance of our elected representative in Congress, it would effectively close access to the northern portion of the Wyoming Range.
Mr. Eshelman’s “donkeys years old” assinine theory of ‘air space’ violation is a mulish concoction of failure to conduct adequate due diligence along with a burro-headed stubbornness of clinging to non-facts. While the plaintiff’s claim resembles a hinny, with a piece of this and a portion of that, there is so much riding on this beast.
Namely, the future of our children and grandchildren, who could be barred from enjoying the same camping, hunting, and outdoor recreation we have known and loved. As with many Wyoming outdoors enthusiasts, I’m watching this action closely and hope the will of the people will prevail.
If, while corner crossing onto public land adjoining lands owned by Eshelman, and I farted would he sue me for millions for polluting “his’ air? What if the air leaving Eshelman’s property contained various pollutants drifted on to adjoining public lands or private property. Is he liable?
Last I knew…”airspace” is controlled by the FAA and starts at the ground. At least that is what my VFR sectionals show.
I wonder how FAA regulations Title 49 US Code 40103 will come into play in the lawsuit?
“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.”
“Our position is that we should have control over who crosses the private land,” Mr. Eshleman should look up the definition of the “Royal We”. His use of it says all you need to know about his arrogance and sense of entitlement.
I would like to see the deed that conveyed this property to Mr.Eshelman. It should clearly state what rights conveyed upon purchase: i.e. timber, minerals, water, buildings, surface usage, subsurface usage, etc and what didn’t convey. I’m willing to bet that there is no mention in that deed that the rights to the air above this 22,000+ acre ranch conveys to the purchaser. This case is a waste of the courts time and should to thrown out.
Sounds like Conspiracy to defraud the US government out of its property- and more.
This is great! I looked it up. 18 US Code 371 expounds defrauding:
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Just stating facts here. Moreover, 18 US Code includes: conspiracy to commit some other federal crime, with many penalties including fines, forfeiture of property and imprisonment. Violating 43 US Code Sections 1061-63 (Unlawful Inclosures Act) is a misdemeanor, and carries a penalty of fines and up to one year imprisonment. Felony convictions include loss of rights to own firearms. Maybe they should have thought this through more thoroughly.
The arrogance of the wealthy class is breathtaking at times. Every kid walking home from school sticks their legs, hands or school backpack over the airspace of someone’s lawn. Should they all be cited for trespass? When my neighbors horse sticks his head over the fence and “steals” the grass on my side, is that trespassing? What about when he’s working his ditch and his shovel–or arm–cross over to my side of the line. Is that trespass? Obviously, in the real world the argument that it does is silly, unrealistic, and unmanageable. Pushing that argument is laughable. That said, I wouldn’t trust a judge to not buy into it.
Public land was set aside for public use. These ultra wealthy absentee owners have no right to keep people out. When you purchase land you purchase “land” as your deed states. You are not purchasing airspace. This guy is claiming that he controls (in other words was gifted) thousands of acres of public lands. Just another case of a greedy corporate (Pharmaceutical in this case) privileged absentee owner trying to bully his way into getting his way. If anyone will put this clown in his place it will be the great people of Wyoming.
Ditto
I doubt the authorities intended to lock the public out of the public land at the time of the land grant to the railroad. The intent was to get people to move to the west. The air space argument is wrong as pointed out. If the court determined corner crossing is trespassing then I would argue that the Landowner owes the public a lot of money from a “taking” perspective.
At this point it seems like it is time to write mandatory access for certain uses into the lease contract. Since
American taxpayers actually own the land, he is stiffing the true owners.
Mr. Eshelman’s interpretation of the law reminds me of the enclosure acts of England and Wales. Those laws allowed the gentry class to expropriate public lands between the 17th and 20th century. There is a poem about this, one verse of which runs:
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.
Pure greed and avarice as well as an prime example of ridiculous behavior on the part of Eshelman. What a waste of time and money dragging this through the court system.
It seems like this clown is quite good keeping the courts busy. He is constantly involved in some lawsuit. Greedy piece of garbage
Interesting argument. We bought land that corners a state school section in 1992 and we confirmed with the Sheriff of Carbon County at that time that we could indeed corner hop. So, will he be paying us damages if he gets his way? Also, interesting is this particular school section is one that he’ been trying to control and use as his own ever since he arrived. He attempted a road across it without a permit, he built a laydown fence that looks more like a road than his road attempt. And he only has the grazing lease.
Also, I would like to confirm that he really gave permission to 4 hunters he never met……we’ve been refused permission at least 3 times.
If the public cant access it, then Oligarch Fred Eshelman cant access it. Charge him for trespassing everytime he coughs into BLM-managed airspace.
So, Fred E. thinks he owns the airspace?! Maybe he ought’a sue Delta, United, American and other airlines who frequently fly over Elk Mountain Ranch on a daily basis. Luckily for Eshelman and his henchmen, I’m not in the jurisdiction to be a juror in the upcoming civil trial.
Interesting! If air space is property of this rancher then, evidently, every plane, including, professional air carriers that cross his land are trespassing. It would be interesting to know at what elevation they wouldn’t be trespassing. 1000 ft, 30,000 ft. 100,000 ft. ? Interesting as he seems to own the sky also!
He’s definitely not a rancher !
AIR SPACE OWNERSHIP. Does Eschelman REALLY think air is owned by him? Wealth must affect brain function. Air once inhaled into my body is MINE. I think there has been an exchange of some vile air contamination, obvious by this lunacy.
He should probably keep his air on his ranch and not let the contamination spread to public lands.
The above sentence makes about as much sense as Eschelman’s logic.
in the corner markers regulations on the blm sight , there is a 3 ft right of way for the marker making the air space above blm airspace.
this is my finding at blm.gov
Perhaps he is making a point, HE is using taxpayers “air space” for free when technically he is only paying for the ground itself. Since the air over that area is so pricy, he probably needs to pay LOTS more. It is really hard to understand anyone being so greedy.
He should pay billions for rent to the public if the public can’t not access federal land .
That’s okay Freddy boy. We will hold our breath as we cross the corner. That way we don’t affect your air. How the hell does using a step ladder contanimate a ranch’s value to the tune of 7 mill. ?
Fres Eshelman is obviously a control freak who has lost his sense of reasoning.
Air space What a dumb ass. I bet he walks around with a plastic bubble around him so no one affects his airspace. He needs to buy some land in California and get the hell out of our state.
Yes!
i don’t understand why the hunters did not contact the owner that they wanted to corner cross.even if the property owner denied there request,showing courtesy would bof been the best course of action.
who brings a ladder when they go hunting ?
seems to me that the hunters were looking for a confrontation !
The hunters were accessing public land, which should be free and available to all.
You comment on every article defending billionaire Fred’s actions, Im guessing you are a burner account for him.
Because it’s public property. Did Eshelman ask permission?
Great point, Paul Burke. While you’re at it, why don’t you first seek permission to access your national forests, national parks (Yellowstone, etc.) and other tracts of public land? Maybe if you’re “courteous” access will be granted. Yea….we’re all going to follow your “lead”, Paul
Confrontation was 100% directly caused by the Eshelman henchmen. Heck, read the article, Paul, Fred Eshelman orders his employees to harass and haze public land users. Where was the Game & Fish in this situation? Why weren’t tickets issued to ranch mgr. Steve Grende and other employees for harassing the Missouri 4? Below is a cut-paste of the Wyoming Hunter Harassment law (AGAIN, G & F, where were ya on this one???)———–
(a) No person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife: (i) Interfere with the lawful taking of or the process of lawfully taking any wildlife; (ii) Engage in any activity intended to threaten or otherwise affect the behavior of any wildlife. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section constitutes a low misdemeanor as punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(v). (c) Any person failing to obey an order of any peace officer to immediately desist from conduct in violation of subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a high misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(ii). (d) Any organization or association which counsels or solicits its members or others to violate subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). Each subsequent violation of this subsection shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). (e) In addition to penalties imposed under this section, any person who has suffered injury by reason of the conduct of any person violating this section is entitled to recover damages in a civil action. Actual damages recoverable may include, but are not limited to expenditures for licenses, travel, outfitters and guides and special equipment and supplies to the extent the expenditures are rendered futile by the person’s conduct in violation of this section. If the trier of fact finds that the unlawful conduct was malicious, it may award punitive damage to the injured party. (f) Upon petition to the district court by any affected party and upon a showing that conduct in violation of this section is threatened or has occurred and under similar circumstances would likely reoccur, the court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of this section. (g) This section shall: (i) Not apply to any land lessee, permittee or any employee thereof engaged in the performance of work-related activities; (ii) Not apply to any landowner or his agent engaged in any activity on his own private property. (h) As used in subsection (a) of this section, “process of lawfully taking” means travel, camping and other acts preparatory to taking wildlife if occurring on lands or water upon which the affected person may legally take the wildlife.
Citation: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-3-405 (West)
Citing ranch employees with hunter harassment seems reasonable to me.
He does not “own” the land, we the taxpayers do, it is government land corner to corner. He owns the other corner to corner. Perhaps it is time for our government to mandate rancher built corner crossings as part of the lease. No crossing, no lease. One food for thought, if any of those hunters were fighting wildfire on his land will he want to charge them? It sure could happen in the summer since volunteers fight fires.
Paul, err…uh…I mean Fred, instead of sending out your henchmen to harass hunters while you hide behind your bought and paid for county attorney and your stable of suited up shysters, why don’t you personally go out in the field and start a confrontation? You bought a ranch with a lot of attached public land, right? You want to be out West and play cowboy, right? Then COWBOY UP, Fred