Another interesting WY public access case

[Bighorner]

From a layman's prospective, it seems the grantee could not grant or curtail rights on adjacent land. Those are sticks in a bundle they don't hold. I can prevent activities on my property, but I can not prevent activities on my neighbor. I would be interested to know what the road status is on the BLM and if an easement was granted on the State surface. I think we should view the State and BLM as being on equal footing with the private land owners.

 

[txco]

Condition three of the easement clearly defends their position for this action. They can't use the easement to access the public. It was an agreed term at the creation of the easement which is a legal binding agreement between both parties.

Now whether or not the original owner at time of the easement creation had to agree to this or not is another story.

Disagree. Says it is private and cannt be made general public access. Anyone using the easement is by permission of the grantee.

 

[OldManOnTheMountain]

Restricting access to public lands should constitute grounds for rejection of all grazing permits, etc. requested by private landowners who would otherwise use that land. Anyone desiring grazing, mining or logging access to public land should be required to allow others to pass for recreational purpose. Price of business, and if you don't like it, don't accept the permit. This seems a fair way to apply leverage to those who would assume de facto ownership of our lands.