One way to stop a corner cross

[Wildabeest]

How does cattle retrieval work? Can you trespass to get your cows?

Solution?
View attachment 188528

One of my parcels in MT abuts a section of state land that has cattle grazing on it. Last year I noticed where the cattle had been on my property, and was able to locate a breech in the barbed wire fence that surrounds the public section (the rancher’s fence, not mine) and fixed it. I thought maybe I was doing him a favor so he didn’t have to chase his cattle all over Park County.

This section of state land happens to be 100% landlocked by private, so I’ve always been curious as to how the rancher accesses the state land, and thought that maybe he owned a parcel that provided access.

When I was up there a few weeks ago, I noticed a gate* had been put in where the previous breech was. Note that this is on the border of my property. I also noticed vehicle tracks across my property to get to said gate, and then onto the state land. I can only assume the rancher installed the gate and was the one who was crossing my property in their vehicle.

I don’t have a real issue with any of this, other than the obvious double standard. I’m not sure if somehow that rancher has the right to drive across my property or not, but if he asked I would undoubtedly grant him permission. In less than 15 minutes he could look my name up on the MT cadastral, Google that and get my contact info.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting in the context of this discussion. The whole thing was more interesting to me than upsetting. But if he starts using my property for hunting access to that state land, then we’ll have a problem!

*not a fixed gate, but rather just two posts in the barbed wire fence put next to each other and wired together such that the wire can be easily removed and that section of fence moved to the side to allow passage.

 

[mtmuley]

One of my parcels in MT abuts a section of state land that has cattle grazing on it. Last year I noticed where the cattle had been on my property, and was able to locate a breech in the barbed wire fence that surrounds the public section (the rancher’s fence, not mine) and fixed it. I thought maybe I was doing him a favor so he didn’t have to chase his cattle all over Park County.

This section of state land happens to be 100% landlocked by private, so I’ve always been curious as to how the rancher accesses the state land, and thought that maybe he owned a parcel that provided access.

When I was up there a few weeks ago, I noticed a gate* had been put in where the previous breech was. Note that this is on the border of my property. I also noticed vehicle tracks across my property to get to said gate, and then onto the state land. I can only assume the rancher installed the gate and was the one who was crossing my property in their vehicle.

I don’t have a real issue with any of this, other than the obvious double standard. I’m not sure if somehow that rancher has the right to drive across my property or not, but if he asked I would undoubtedly grant him permission. In less than 15 minutes he could look my name up on the MT cadastral, Google that and get my contact info.

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting in the context of this discussion. The whole thing was more interesting to me than upsetting. But if he starts using my property for hunting access to that state land, then we’ll have a problem!

*not a fixed gate, but rather just two posts in the barbed wire fence put next to each other and wired together such that the wire can be easily removed and that section of fence moved to the side to allow passage.

Some folks in Montana still are "old school" if you will. I grew up in an agricultural family. Not everybody likes it, but it was commonplace to do things like that. Probly not as well received today. Have you talked with the rancher? You seem pretty calm with the issue. mtmuley

 

[Wildabeest]

Some folks in Montana still are "old school" if you will. I grew up in an agricultural family. Not everybody likes it, but it was commonplace to do things like that. Probly not as well received today. Have you talked with the rancher? You seem pretty calm with the issue. mtmuley

Not yet. Hope to meet him at some point and let him know it’s OK. At this point in my life, picking fights is the last thing I want to do. I like “old school” as it relates to how people treat each other.

 

[mtmuley]

Not yet. Hope to meet him at some point and let him know it’s OK. At this point in my life, picking fights is the last thing I want to do. I like “old school” as it relates to how people treat each other.

Nice. It probably isn't right in this day and age, but it used to be neighbors had permission. Times have changed for sure. mtmuley

 

[Highfastflyer]

Would court fees for the state exceed 75MM if not seems cheaper to deal with the litigation.

In the case of corner crossing the easements would be measured in square feet not acres, you could try sending folks checks for $200 but I think for most private landowners that are against corner crossing the money would not stop litigation so why pay them? There are likely landowners that would balk at 10MM for one corner, further who is paying for the title costs to determine where the thousands of checks would go?

You are never going to get every landowner on board. So inevitably there will be a lawsuit and the courts will decide, so at some point the state legislatures just need to sack up, knowing they will end up in court.

Many state already allow various types of recreational trespass, esp on land that isn’t posted. Modify the trespass law and call it a day.

If you think the Courts can fix this you are barking up a dead tree. The Federal government tried that one. Go look up Leo Sheep Company vs. United States. It didn’t end so well and did cost taxpayers dearly. Not only in money but in assuring now we are locked out of inaccessible public lands. Now all Federal and State agencies always list corner hopping as trespassing. I just looked at the BLM website and I quote,”Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access.”
Courts have sided with the private landowners and has led us to the sad dilemma we are in. The only way forward is to eventually get a Legislature to fix the problem and it won’t be with a few foot easement like you Dream of it will be legitimate easements and payments that benefit somewhat all parties. North Dakota has the best model which could be effectively adopted and implemented. With a foot hopping easement now you have the issue of horses, cows, somebody being a little off on their GPS and a myriad of problems besides the measly $200 you think will do the trick will be laughed at. It won’t even pay a ranch hand a days labour anymore LMFAO.

 

[Wildabeest]

Nice. It probably isn't right in this day and age, but it used to be neighbors had permission. Times have changed for sure. mtmuley

I miss those days.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you think the Courts can fix this you are barking up a dead tree. The Federal government tried that one. Go look up Leo Sheep Company vs. United States. It didn’t end so well and did cost taxpayers dearly. Not only in money but in assuring now we are locked out of inaccessible public lands. Now all Federal and State agencies always list corner hopping as trespassing. I just looked at the BLM website and I quote,”Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access.”
Courts have sided with the private landowners and has led us to the sad dilemma we are in. The only way forward is to eventually get a Legislature to fix the problem and it won’t be with a few foot easement like you Dream of it will be legitimate easements and payments that benefit somewhat all parties. North Dakota has the best model which could be effectively adopted and implemented. With a foot hopping easement now you have the issue of horses, cows, somebody being a little off on their GPS and a myriad of problems besides the measly $200 you think will do the trick will be laughed at. It won’t even pay a ranch hand a days labour anymore LMFAO.

Re-read my comment. I said 10 million wouldn’t be enough let alone $200 or whatever paltry sum would be given.

1. Legislation clarifying trespass aka decriminalizing trespass. If you trespass for recreation we won't prosecute. (See attached opinion from WY Attorney general)
a. Assume said law with be fought in court
b. Easements in many areas would be valued by landowner well in excess of Any amount proposed.

In North Dakota I assume the easement is for state land? How is federal and treated, what happened when you aren’t talking about checkerboard but rather a corner that blocks thousand of contiguous acres.

Did you follow the Oxy land sale? WY demonstrated it had no interest in spending money on this issue.

 

[Highfastflyer]

Re-read my comment. I said 10 million wouldn’t be enough let alone $200 or whatever paltry sum would be given.

1. Legislation clarifying trespass
a. Assume said law with be fought in court
b. Easements in many areas would be valued by landowner well in excess of Any amount proposed.

In North Dakota I assume the easement is for state land? How is federal and treated, what happened when you aren’t talking about checkerboard but rather a corner that blocks thousand of contiguous acres.

Did you follow the Oxy land sale? WY demonstrated it had no interest in spending money on this issue.

Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee. I doubt that path will ever make corner hopping legal. The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated. The only viable path forward is a legislative action requiring an easement into those landlocked lands.

The North Dakota model is around every section, every single section both public, private, federal or state. There are not roads around many of those sections but they do have the easement in place and you can walk in to any parcel you desire which is designed like a roadway easement ie 66 feet wide. They can be closed off but it is very difficult to do so. The county commissioners almost always won’t allow it as they know they might be impeding future access. The Occidental land sale was just too big for Wyoming as it included a substantial amount of market value mineral rights which Wyoming Legislators felt was too much of a burden and conflict to purchase. You can read more about ND policy which is well established in Law and has served them very well ie no big sections of landlocked public lands. In Wyoming it should only be used for landlocked lands but would still be very expensive but as I see it the only viable path forward. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/aglawandmanagement/appliedaglaw/reference/sectionlines

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee. I doubt that path will ever make corner hopping legal. The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated. The only viable path forward is a legislative action requiring an easement into those landlocked lands.

The North Dakota model is around every section, every single section both public, private, federal or state. There are not roads around many of those sections but they do have the easement in place and you can walk in to any parcel you desire which is designed like a roadway easement ie 66 feet wide. They can be closed off but it is very difficult to do so. The county commissioners almost always won’t allow it as they know they might be impeding future access. The Occidental land sale was just too big for Wyoming as it included a substantial amount of market value mineral rights which Wyoming Legislators felt was too much of a burden and conflict to purchase. You can read more about ND policy which is well established in Law and has served them very well ie no big sections of landlocked public lands. In Wyoming it should only be used for landlocked lands but would still be very expensive but as I see it the only viable path forward. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/aglawandmanagement/appliedaglaw/reference/sectionlines

Did North Dakota pay for the easements?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee. I doubt that path will ever make corner hopping legal. The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated. The only viable path forward is a legislative action requiring an easement into those landlocked lands.

The North Dakota model is around every section, every single section both public, private, federal or state. There are not roads around many of those sections but they do have the easement in place and you can walk in to any parcel you desire which is designed like a roadway easement ie 66 feet wide. They can be closed off but it is very difficult to do so. The county commissioners almost always won’t allow it as they know they might be impeding future access. The Occidental land sale was just too big for Wyoming as it included a substantial amount of market value mineral rights which Wyoming Legislators felt was too much of a burden and conflict to purchase. You can read more about ND policy which is well established in Law and has served them very well ie no big sections of landlocked public lands. In Wyoming it should only be used for landlocked lands but would still be very expensive but as I see it the only viable path forward. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/aglawandmanagement/appliedaglaw/reference/sectionlines

I think you are failing to understand my position.

Yes, ND has a great solution. (Kinda)

That solution will never happen in the big public land states because.
1. "Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee." (You)

2. "The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated." (You)

The point here is that private land owners want exclusive to public lands, so no external access, it's not that they are against the idea of corner crossing specifically but would be open to other types of easements.

This is public access versus private exclusion. It's not about mechanics.

"This would require a state legislature to perform an eminent domain type procedure and fully compensate the landowners around every section in the state with landlocked public land where feasible so it would be an extremely EXPENISVE condemnation action. The cost would entail about 4 acres around each section ie 5280 X 33 is about 4 acres X 4 sides of the section so about 16 acres lost per section and an agricultural price of $1000 X 16= $16,000 per section would have to be paid to each section owner. In Wyoming with about 3 million acres of landlocked public land is about 4687 sections of landlocked public so you would need to pay landowners $16,000 X 4687 sections to open it up equals about $75,000,000." (you)

I think your numbers are wildly off (low) about the cost of the easement. I brought up Oxy because the state could have made the purchase, and then sold off the minerals, or leased the minerals and then recouped a vast amount of the purchase price, or purchased the entire package and then sold them off with a public access easement.

Point being, the state didn't it's not interested.
The state is therefore certainly not interested in paying landowers 75MM to ? 500MM for easements.
If they did pay to do a condemnation action that would require:
1. Public support, which you say repeatedly doesn't exist
2. Would be subject to lawsuits, which as you say would be rough fighting Turner et al legal team.

You're saying the solution is to push through a huge law that creates an easement on thousands of acres of private land at a huge tax payer expense. These easements if following the ND model would allow for roads to be built across private land, "The general rule is that section lines are considered public roadways open for public travel."

If your argument is that landowners don't want corner crossing, why would they then be more amenable to the state building roads across their land?

Corner hopping is basically "easement light", foot traffic only in specified spots. You could write various mechanisms to deal with issues, at corners there is an implied 33 ft easement on each side of the corner.


The point is what's tenable, probably nothing. My point you might be able to get some foot traffic, trucks... good luck getting the public to vote on allocating anywhere near the amount of money that would take.

Compensation for easements; you won’t negotiate for each corner, the price of an easement is what the buyer and seller agree to nothing less. If someone thinks their easements are worth 50MM and you condemn them and pay them 6MM, they will sue. The court is the ultimate decider in the US.

Last point ND is probably not a great example.
Not a lot of public land
ND 44MM size of state: 2MM of Fed/state land
CO 66MM: 23MM
WY 62MM: 31MM
MT 93MM: 30MM

I'm not going to spend the brain power researching if easements were paid, I doubt they were, my assumption is given the lack of public lands in ND that law came about to make sure that private landowners had legal access to their fields at all times of the year and had zero to do with public land access. Therefore completely different situation and therefore, politically speaking, irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you think the Courts can fix this you are barking up a dead tree. The Federal government tried that one. Go look up Leo Sheep Company vs. United States. It didn’t end so well and did cost taxpayers dearly.

Spurious and irrelevant to my point which is decriminalized trespass. In Leo sheep the Federal government built a road across private land for public access, without compensating landowners; arguing they had an implied easement.

1. That case has nothing to do with passing state legislation about pedestrian trespass
2. The parties are the federal government v. private owner, the case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of state trespass law
3. Contrary to the ND solution that your propose I'm not advocating the creating of roads.

Cite a case where a state was sued and lost for passing permissive trespass laws.

Syllabus

The Union Pacific Act of 1862 granted public land to the Union Pacific Railroad for each mile of track that it laid, and this was done under a system whereby land surrounding the railroad right-of-way was divided into "checkerboard" blocks, with odd-numbered lots being granted to the railroad and even-numbered lots being reserved for the Government. Petitioners, the railroad's successors in fee to certain odd-numbered lots in Wyoming lying in the vicinity of a reservoir area used by the public for fishing and hunting, brought an action to quiet title against the United States after the Govrnment had cleared a road across the Leo Sheep Co.'s land to afford the public access to the reservoir area. The District Court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, when Congress granted land to the Union Pacific Railroad, it implicitly reserved an easement to pass over the odd-numbered sections in order to reach the even-numbered sections held by the Government.

Held: The Government does not have an implied easement to build a road across petitioners' land. Pp. 440 U. S. 678-688.

(a) The tenuous relevance of the common law doctrine of easement by necessity to the Government's asserted reserved right here is insufficient to overcome the inference prompted by the omission of any reference in the 1862 Act to such a right. Pp. 440 U. S. 679-682.

(b) Nor does the canon of construction that, when grants to federal lands are at issue, any doubts "are resolved for the Government, not against it," Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U. S. 604, 436 U. S. 617, support the Government's position, since such grants "are not to be so construed as to defeat the intent of the legislature," United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 150 U. S. 1, 150 U. S. 14. Pp 440 U. S. 682-683.

(c) Nor is the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act of 1885 of any significance in this case, since petitioners' unwillingness to entertain a public road without compensation cannot be considered a violation of that Act, it having been recognized in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, that obstruction of access to even-numbered lots by individually fenced odd-numbered lots was not a violation of the Act. Pp. 440 U. S. 683-687.

 

[Highfastflyer]

Did North Dakota pay for the easements?

I don’t think so as this is century old law.

 

[Highfastflyer]

I think you are failing to understand my position.

Yes, ND has a great solution. (Kinda)

That solution will never happen in the big public land states because.
1. "Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee." (You)

2. "The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated." (You)

The point here is that private land owners want exclusive to public lands, not that they are against the idea of corner crossing.

This is public access versus private exclusion. It's not about mechanics.

"This would require a state legislature to perform an eminent domain type procedure and fully compensate the landowners around every section in the state with landlocked public land where feasible so it would be an extremely EXPENISVE condemnation action. The cost would entail about 4 acres around each section ie 5280 X 33 is about 4 acres X 4 sides of the section so about 16 acres lost per section and an agricultural price of $1000 X 16= $16,000 per section would have to be paid to each section owner. In Wyoming with about 3 million acres of landlocked public land is about 4687 sections of landlocked public so you would need to pay landowners $16,000 X 4687 sections to open it up equals about $75,000,000." (you)

I think your numbers are wildly off (low) about the cost of the easement. I brought up Oxy because the state could have made the purchase, and then sold off the minerals, or leased the minerals and then recouped a vast amount of the purchase price, or purchased the entire package and then sold them off with a public access easement.

Point being, the state didn't it's not interested.
The state is therefore certainly not interested in paying landowers 75MM to ? 500MM for easements.
If they did pay do a condemnation action that would require:
1. Public support, which you say repeatedly doesn't exist
2. Would be subject to lawsuits, which as you say would be rough fighting Turner et al legal team.

You're saying the solution is to push through a huge law that creates an easement on thousands of acres of private land at a huge tax payer expense. These easements if following the ND model would allow for roads to be built across private land, "The general rule is that section lines are considered public roadways open for public travel."

If your argument is that landowners don't want corner crossing, why would they then be more amenable to the state building roads across their land?

Corner hopping is basically "easement light", foot traffic only in specified spots. You could write various mechanisms to deal with issues, at corners there is a implied 33 ft easement on each side of the corner.
View attachment 188659

The point is what's tenable, probably nothing. My point you might be able to get some foot traffic, trucks... good luck getting the public to vote on allocating anywhere near the amount of money that would take.

Last point ND is probably not a great example.
Not a lot of public land
ND 44MM size of state: 2MM of Fed/state land
CO 66MM: 23MM
WY 62MM: 31MM
MT 93MM: 30MM

I'm not going to spend the brain power researching if easements were paid, I doubt they were, my assumption is given the lack of public lands in ND that law came about to make sure that private landowners had legal access to their fields at all times of the year and had zero to do with public land access. Therefore completely different situation and therefore, politically speaking, irrelevant.

You don’t understand very well the Wyoming position. The Governor solidly wanted the Occidental purchase to occur but many of the Legislature felt it was just far too steep of a price for not that much land and mostly just subsurface mineral rights and not that much surface acreage, which was also not supported by the Oil and Gas lobby. Most sportsmen obviously supported it but the Oil and gas lobby was just too entrenched against it.

My numbers are possibly on the low side but fair market value for agricultural land is between $500-$1000 per acre in most of those checkerboard lands across southern Wyoming so I used $1000 per acre. The legislature could do a real estate survey analysis and comparison much like they already do when selling State lands. Wyoming sells these state lands all the time and many of these lands sell for less than $1000 per acre.

As in North Dakota, Wyoming could do the same and pass an easement of 33 feet either side of the section line so 66 feet in total. Most of these easements do NOT allow motorised traffic in North Dakota as they are merely easements they are not established roads. Only if a county commission designated it as such as an accessible public road would vehicular traffic be allowed. Most of them are foot traffic only. In rural Southwest Wyoming very few roads would ever be built it would merely be foot traffic on the majority of these easements.

Yes there would possibly be opposition by the large ranchers and landowners but the majority rules in legislature could make it possible to pass legislation and open up all these landlocked public lands. As I see it this is the only viable way forward and might be more palatable to those large landowners if they get a check for $16,000 for every section they own. The Overland Trail ranch owned by Anschutz Corp. is almost 500,000 acres and half is public and half is private located right in the heart of the checkerboard lands. If they received $16,000 for every private section it would be $6,250,000 and zero loss or net effect of their grazing or wind farm operations and they do Not allow any hunting so no revenue loss either from allowing an easement across their lands.

 

[Highfastflyer]

Spurious and irrelevant to my point. In that case the Federal government built a road across private land for public access, without compensating landowners.

1. That case has nothing to do with passing state legislation about pedestrian trespass
2. The parties are the federal government v. private owner, the case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of state trespass law
3. Contrary to the ND solution that your propose I'm not advocating the creating of roads.

Cite a case where a state was sued and lost for passing permissive trespass laws.

Syllabus

The Union Pacific Act of 1862 granted public land to the Union Pacific Railroad for each mile of track that it laid, and this was done under a system whereby land surrounding the railroad right-of-way was divided into "checkerboard" blocks, with odd-numbered lots being granted to the railroad and even-numbered lots being reserved for the Government. Petitioners, the railroad's successors in fee to certain odd-numbered lots in Wyoming lying in the vicinity of a reservoir area used by the public for fishing and hunting, brought an action to quiet title against the United States after the Govrnment had cleared a road across the Leo Sheep Co.'s land to afford the public access to the reservoir area. The District Court granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, when Congress granted land to the Union Pacific Railroad, it implicitly reserved an easement to pass over the odd-numbered sections in order to reach the even-numbered sections held by the Government.

Held: The Government does not have an implied easement to build a road across petitioners' land. Pp. 440 U. S. 678-688.

(a) The tenuous relevance of the common law doctrine of easement by necessity to the Government's asserted reserved right here is insufficient to overcome the inference prompted by the omission of any reference in the 1862 Act to such a right. Pp. 440 U. S. 679-682.

(b) Nor does the canon of construction that, when grants to federal lands are at issue, any doubts "are resolved for the Government, not against it," Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 U. S. 604, 436 U. S. 617, support the Government's position, since such grants "are not to be so construed as to defeat the intent of the legislature," United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 150 U. S. 1, 150 U. S. 14. Pp 440 U. S. 682-683.

(c) Nor is the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act of 1885 of any significance in this case, since petitioners' unwillingness to entertain a public road without compensation cannot be considered a violation of that Act, it having been recognized in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, that obstruction of access to even-numbered lots by individually fenced odd-numbered lots was not a violation of the Act. Pp. 440 U. S. 683-687.

I am certainly NOT advocating building any roads. This is your fallacious assumption. Most of these easements only allow foot traffic in North Dakota and in Wyoming it would be the same. It is a mechanism which ensures public access to public lands but would give foresight if future growth and development necessitated the building of a road. If the Courts could fix corner hopping they would have been utilised a half century ago. The Courts will never fix this any thinking they can is just foolish wishful thinking. As I see it the only way forward is to compensate the landowners for an easement. The North Dakota model works well to follow for that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wyoming tried to clarify trespass laws in 2019 making it even easier for LE to issue trespassing citations, it never made it out of committee. I doubt that path will ever make corner hopping legal. The stock growers Association. Also tried to make corner hopping illegal back in the 1990s, it also was defeated. The only viable path forward is a legislative action requiring an easement into those landlocked lands.

The North Dakota model is around every section, every single section both public, private, federal or state. There are not roads around many of those sections but they do have the easement in place and you can walk in to any parcel you desire which is designed like a roadway easement ie 66 feet wide. They can be closed off but it is very difficult to do so. The county commissioners almost always won’t allow it as they know they might be impeding future access. The Occidental land sale was just too big for Wyoming as it included a substantial amount of market value mineral rights which Wyoming Legislators felt was too much of a burden and conflict to purchase. You can read more about ND policy which is well established in Law and has served them very well ie no big sections of landlocked public lands. In Wyoming it should only be used for landlocked lands but would still be very expensive but as

I am certainly NOT advocating building any roads. This is your fallacious assumption. Most of these easements only allow foot traffic in North Dakota and in Wyoming it would be the same. It is a mechanism which ensures public access to public lands but would give foresight if future growth and development necessitated the building of a road. If the Courts could fix corner hopping they would have been utilised a half century ago. The Courts will never fix this any thinking they can is just foolish wishful thinking. As I see it the only way forward is to compensate the landowners for an easement. The North Dakota model works well to follow for that.

You are willfully misreading my comments, or just completely ignoring them. I get it you think you’re a genius and want to gift us with your brilliance.

Enjoy conversations with yourself.

 

[Highfastflyer]

You are willfully misreading my comments, or just completely ignoring them. I get it you think you’re a genius and want to gift us with your brilliance.

Enjoy conversations with yourself.

More like easily pointing out your Nonsense and gibberish. Your feeble arguments and poorly defended ramblings which you are either Ignorant or Obtuse, likely both is readily apparent. I suggest you stick with a topic you know something about as you obviously know very little about corner hopping, easements, trespass law or viable paths forward like the North Dakota model and ways to help access landlocked public lands. You must be a Utard.

 

[rwc101]

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Legalizing trespass has been tried but it didn't have the support to pass.

https://wyoleg.gov/2011/Introduced/HB0171.PDF

For those curious this provides excellent information about the topic.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt1kx576dv/qt1kx576dv_noSplash_fc668f8ed128cea513a924b6199a91bb.pdf?t=q23n5f

This article discusses the benefits and pitfalls of various strategies including easements, swaps, and decriminalizing trespass.

 

[Highfastflyer]

 

[WapitiBob]

I just walk across the corner.
If anybody can find a deputy that'll do more than write a warning, post his name. Several people are more than willing to go to court.