Podcast Episodes on Public-Private Property Rights at Intersecting Corners

[bucdoego]

700 dollars a day is pretty cost prohibitive to most people.

I'm all for sticking it to the greedy landowners by flying in but its not a solution.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think it is $700/day. I think the cost is $700/hunter in a group of three or four sharing the overall cost for the helicopter service. It could go up or down a little based upon the number of Elk to be transported.

At least you aren't paying the landowners for access fees or an outfitted hunt. Cheap? Nope. Doable? Not by everyone, but for some it is an interesting option to consider. At least that was my thought. You are correct in that it wouldn't fit for everyone.

 

[Pucky Freak]

The first podcast is mostly background for the listeners who are not familiar with the issue to the degree many on this forum are familiar.

I almost skipped this episode with this disclaimer. IMO, Randy, you are far too modest. I HIGHLY recommend a listen to any and all who are interested in this subject, as Randy artfully strings together the current relevant factors of CC in a fitting historical context. Both episodes 1 and 2 are top-drawer content. Very impressive.

In episode 2 I anticipated a lot of reference to ad coelum doctrine, and how steep the barriers are to mounting a defense of public access. Instead, Pandora’s box is opened to the possibilities of the next chapter of public land owners may be able to do.

Randy, thanks again for all your time and treasure dedicated to this topic. This may yet be your greatest legacy long after you are gone.

I’ll go scrub the brown stuff off my now

 

[Pedropistola]

700 dollars a day is pretty cost prohibitive to most people.

I'm all for sticking it to the greedy landowners by flying in but its not a solution.

If I remember correctly, I thought I heard that the landowners surrounding this piece of public, which has been accessed via helicopter, banded together to build a fence around the entire thing. This prevented the elk from returning up into the high ground on public and kept them all on private year round. I could be mistaken but think it was on a BHA podcast

 

[Pedropistola]

I'm not sure if it's well known yet or not, but Wyoming has introduced a bill to broaden the definition of the current law and make corner crossing more clearly ILLEGAL.

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2022/HB0103

From an article on WyoFile...
"The bill would bolster that position by amending the definition of hunter trespass, which now states only that “no person shall enter upon” private property. The amendment would add a clause so the statute reads “no person shall enter upon or travel through” private property without permission.

Rep. Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) is the lead sponsor. Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Jamie Flitner (R-Greybull), Mike Greear (R-Worland), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Tom Walters (R-Casper) plus Sens. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) and Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) are co-sponsors"

@Big Fin will this be brought up in the subsequent episodes? Curious how this law might be overruled if it does end up passing

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I'm not sure if it's well known yet or not, but Wyoming has introduced a bill to broaden the definition of the current law and make corner crossing more clearly ILLEGAL.

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2022/HB0103

From an article on WyoFile...
"The bill would bolster that position by amending the definition of hunter trespass, which now states only that “no person shall enter upon” private property. The amendment would add a clause so the statute reads “no person shall enter upon or travel through” private property without permission.

Rep. Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) is the lead sponsor. Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Jamie Flitner (R-Greybull), Mike Greear (R-Worland), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Tom Walters (R-Casper) plus Sens. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) and Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) are co-sponsors"

@Big Fin will this be brought up in the subsequent episodes? Curious how this law might be overruled if it does end up passing

While it stinks that we have state legislators bringing this to the table, my congress woman got a reproachful email from me as one of the co-sponsors, the bill died before it could go to vote.

 

[WesternWyoming]

The Wyoming House did not consider HB0130 for introduction. But if this ridiculous bill does come back, I'd be interested to hear more about how the air above private property is also private. I may be able to keep my neighbors from aerial spraying GD herbicides & insecticides that drift onto my fruit trees and vegetable garden. Bet the legislators didn't consider that.

 

[Dirthog67]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think it is $700/day. I think the cost is $700/hunter in a group of three or four sharing the overall cost for the helicopter service. It could go up or down a little based upon the number of Elk to be transported.

At least you aren't paying the landowners for access fees or an outfitted hunt. Cheap? Nope. Doable? Not by everyone, but for some it is an interesting option to consider. At least that was my thought. You are correct in that it wouldn't fit for everyone.

You shouldn't have to pay anymore than a nominal fee to access public land. Yes, the helicopter option is there for those that can afford it but it does not make the land accessible.

Outdoors is for everyone.

 

[RobG]

I'm not sure if it's well known yet or not, but Wyoming has introduced a bill to broaden the definition of the current law and make corner crossing more clearly ILLEGAL.

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2022/HB0103

From an article on WyoFile...
"The bill would bolster that position by amending the definition of hunter trespass, which now states only that “no person shall enter upon” private property. The amendment would add a clause so the statute reads “no person shall enter upon or travel through” private property without permission.

Rep. Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) is the lead sponsor. Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Jamie Flitner (R-Greybull), Mike Greear (R-Worland), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Tom Walters (R-Casper) plus Sens. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) and Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) are co-sponsors"

@Big Fin will this be brought up in the subsequent episodes? Curious how this law might be overruled if it does end up passing

The inclusion of "or travel through private property without permission" has obvious issues, but it is interesting the legislatures in MT or WY don't directly attack corner crossing. They could have just as easily said "or travel across checkerboard corners without permission" but they always take indirect shots at it.

 

[seeth07]

The inclusion of "or travel through private property without permission" has obvious issues, but it is interesting the legislatures in MT or WY don't directly attack corner crossing. They could have just as easily said "or travel across checkerboard corners without permission" but they always take indirect shots at it.

That's because ambiguity is key for landowners right now as the vast majority of public land users just don't feel it's worth it to corner cross and potentially land where these 4 hunters are right now.

 

[bucdoego]

You shouldn't have to pay anymore than a nominal fee to access public land. Yes, the helicopter option is there for those that can afford it but it does not make the land accessible.

Outdoors is for everyone.

Nothing here for me to argue with.

 

[bucdoego]

I'm not sure if it's well known yet or not, but Wyoming has introduced a bill to broaden the definition of the current law and make corner crossing more clearly ILLEGAL.

https://wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2022/HB0103

From an article on WyoFile...
"The bill would bolster that position by amending the definition of hunter trespass, which now states only that “no person shall enter upon” private property. The amendment would add a clause so the statute reads “no person shall enter upon or travel through” private property without permission.

Rep. Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) is the lead sponsor. Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Jamie Flitner (R-Greybull), Mike Greear (R-Worland), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Tom Walters (R-Casper) plus Sens. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) and Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) are co-sponsors"

@Big Fin will this be brought up in the subsequent episodes? Curious how this law might be overruled if it does end up passing

This group needs to here from the relevant constituencies. Shine a little light into the dark corners, as it were.

Rep. Barry Crago (R-Buffalo) is the lead sponsor. Reps. Eric Barlow (R-Gillette), Aaron Clausen (R-Douglas), Jamie Flitner (R-Greybull), Mike Greear (R-Worland), Chip Neiman (R-Hulett), Ember Oakley (R-Riverton) and Tom Walters (R-Casper) plus Sens. Brian Boner (R-Douglas), Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) and Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) are co-sponsors"

 

[BrentD]

The Wyoming House did not consider HB0130 for introduction. But if this ridiculous bill does come back, I'd be interested to hear more about how the air above private property is also private. I may be able to keep my neighbors from aerial spraying GD herbicides & insecticides that drift onto my fruit trees and vegetable garden. Bet the legislators didn't consider that.

I bet they don't care. They certainly don't here, where ag-chem drift is a major issue - always unenforced, in my experience.

 

[Dirthog67]

Hopefully we learned to stop voting against our best interests soon.

There are more of us than there are megarich landowners

 

[PrairieHunter]

Saw this one earlier today.


While lobbying two law officers to cite four hunters with trespass for corner crossing last fall in Carbon County, Elk Mountain Ranch Manager Steve Grende asked the lawmen, who were reluctant to charge the hunters, how much their supervisors knew about his boss.
“Do they realize how much money my boss has … and property?” Grende said.
A sheriff’s deputy eventually charged the four hunters with criminal trespass, setting off a cascade of legal activity over corner crossing — stepping from one parcel of public land to another at a four-way, checkerboard-pattern intersection with two private parcels. The hunters assert they never set foot on private ground.


The hunters have pleaded not guilty and public-land access advocates have donated almost $70,000 toward their defense. Grende’s boss, through his holding company, filed a related civil suit seeking legal fees and potentially other damages, and the hunters’ attorneys have sought dismissal of the criminal charges. The deputy county prosecutor asked a judge to add alternative trespass counts as the whole legal affair has blossomed into a closely watched test case about access to, and exclusion from, some 1.6 million acres of public land across the West.
Nothing in the flurry of developments, however, has answered Grende’s question.
But a WyoFile investigation shows that in addition to owning some 23,277 acres in and near Elk Mountain Ranch, Fredric Neville Eshelman has a history of multi-million-dollar philanthropy, a long track record of conservative political donations, a complex inventory of land transactions in Carbon County — including the donation of several conservation easements — and a willingness to litigate.
The North Carolina businessman, whom Forbes estimated had a net worth of at least $380 million in 2014, came onto the Elk Mountain scene in 2005 when he bought the ranch that covers much of the 11,156-foot wildlife-rich peak. Because of the checkerboard land ownership pattern, the ranch blocks public access to some 6,400 acres of federal and state property under any interpretation of trespass laws that make corner crossing illegal.
One real estate listing described the ranch as covering “an area of more than 50 square miles,” which would be some 32,000 acres. The property was listed for $19.9 million, apparently by the pre 2005 owners. Court rulings, the listing stated, give the ranch owner exclusive access to the enmeshed public land, much of it in isolated mile-by-mile sections.

Despite ranch manager Grende’s urgings, the Game and Fish and Sheriff’s officers who met with him last Oct. 1 did not cite the four Missouri hunters who were camped nearby. In a 16-minute conversation recorded on Sheriff Deputy Alex Brakken’s body camera, he and Wyoming Game and Fish officer Jake Miller explained their agencies’ positions to not cite people who corner cross.
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission policy shuns trespassing-to-hunt-charges in corner crossing cases. Wardens are to refer the matter to the local county attorney, Miller explained in the video. Brakken opined that corner crossing was not automatically a criminal trespass citation but would be considered by County and Prosecuting Attorney Ashley Mayfield Davis.
Several days later, however, at Davis’s behest, another deputy returned to the roadside camp on public U.S. Bureau of Land Management property and wrote the four men up. He cited hunters Zachary Smith, Phillip Yeomans, Bradly Cape and John Slowensky for criminal trespass, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum six-month sentence and $750 fine.
The hunters allege that Grende illegally harassed them while they were hunting on public land, but only they face charges. A trial is set for April 14 in Carbon County Circuit Court in Rawlins and could include a trespassing-to-hunt violation prosecutors seek to add against three of the defendants.
Even as the corner-crossing case was developing, the financial resources to fight a legal battle emerged as a key issue. Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers launched a GoFundMe campaign so the four could make their case in court without regard to their wealth. “We feel it imperative to not limit the scope of the legal proceedings to the financial resources of the defendants,” Wyoming BHA stated in a position paper.

Despite Grende’s assertions that his boss’s wealth, power and influence perhaps should play a role in stimulating a criminal case, Davis stated in court filings that her decision is based on a long-held policy. “The idea that corner crossing is illegal…has been a consistent policy of the Carbon County Attorney’s office at least since 2008,” she wrote.
Meantime the Elk Mountain Ranch owner, Iron Bar Holdings LLC — which lists Eshelman as its manager — sued the hunters in Carbon County District Court, bringing Eshelman’s resources to bear. Iron Bar seeks a declaration that the four Missouri men trespassed and asks for damages such as attorneys’ fees and costs.
“When I drive onto that ranch, it’s like a transformation,” Eshelman was quoted saying in a 2016 article in Triangle Business Journal. Among other pursuits out West, he told the publication, “I like to hunt mountain lion.”
Neither Eshelman’s company, Eshelman Ventures, nor an attorney representing him responded to WyoFile messages seeking an interview. A person answering the phone at Elk Mountain Ranch would not comment on the corner crossing case and another call to the ranch was not returned.
A successful career as a pharmaceutical industry entrepreneur after graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1972 appears to have given Eshelman and Iron Bar Holdings the means to buy Elk Mountain.
University accounts, Forbes and other sources sketched the following career. Eshelman earned a Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University of Cincinnati and graduated from the Owner/President Management Program of Harvard Business School.

Eshelman founded consulting firm Pharmaceutical Product Development in Maryland in 1985, and thus launched a successful, independent and lucrative career in the drug and health business. PPD went public and eventually sold for $3.9 billion in 2011, Forbes reported.
Eshelman also founded Furiex Pharmaceuticals in 1998, which sold in 2014 “in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $1.1bn” Pharmaceutical Technology wrote. His current enterprise Eshelman Ventures is an investment firm focusing on healthcare companies.
Eshelman gave nearly $38 million to the pharmacy school at UNC through 2014, according to Forbes. That year he pledged another $100 million to the institution, which is now named the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy. The university bestowed an honorary doctorate on him in 2017.
He’s also donated millions to conservative Republican candidates running for federal offices. In the 2008 election cycle he pumped $5.5 million into Rightchange.org, Eshelman’s “527” tax-exempt organization “formed primarily to influence a political election,” according to Open Secrets.
That public interest coalition tracks Federal Elections Commission reports and other public sources, like the IRS, that hold information regarding political contributions. The 2008 election contributions, which included $1 million from the president of PPD, launched “a barrage of attacks against Democrat Barack Obama during his presidential campaign,” Open Secrets stated.

From 2009-2010 Eshelman was the second top individual contributor to “outside money organizations” involved in elections during that period, donating $6.3 million, Open Secrets reported. Since the 2008 election cycle, Eshelman and PPD contributed at least $28.5 million to conservative and Republican federal political candidates, according to calculations made from the watchdog group’s website.

In Wyoming, Eshelman and Iron Bar Holdings executed a series of ranch purchases, sales and conservation easements starting in 2005 across tens of thousands of acres south of Interstate 80 in Carbon County
After buying the Elk Mountain Ranch in 2005, Iron Bar expanded its holdings, purchasing more than 7,000 acres from the McKee family in 2006. That property lies about 4 miles east of the Elk Mountain Ranch.
In 2007 Eshelman’s name appeared for the first time as president of the Basin Ranch Co., according to reports filed with the Wyoming Secretary of State. The Basin Ranch lies about 5 miles south of the Elk Mountain Ranch, abuts the Medicine Bow National Forest and appears to cover almost 12,000 acres, according to Carbon County property documents
The Basin Ranch borders a federal parcel that the Office of State Lands and Investments and water developers have identified for exchange to Wyoming. That swap would give Wyoming a holding inside the national forest to enable construction of the West Fork Reservoir above the Little Snake River in Carbon County.
In 2008 Eshelman signed three documents donating conservation easements in Carbon County to the Wyoming Stock Growers Agricultural Land Trust. They cover about 22,438 acres across the Basin Ranch, the McKee Ranch and the Vickers Complex and preserve the tracts from substantial development, property documents show.
If voluntarily donated, a conservation easement “can qualify as a charitable tax deduction on the donor’s federal income tax return,” the Land Trust Alliance explains.
A story published in High Plains Journal in 2009 quotes Eshelman describing the goal of the easements.

 

[PrairieHunter]

“Ranch lands are vital to preserving open space and view sheds for future generations,” the Journal quoted Eshelman as saying. “Development that occurs throughout the west [sic] is not an option. Continued agricultural operations and conserving the ranch lands for wildlife are a primary goal…”
Eshelman and his companies appear to have sold most of the holdings outside Elk Mountain Ranch since filing the 2008 easements. In December 2021 Eshelman signed a warranty deed turning over Basin Ranch property to Silver Spur Land and Cattle Co., a Colorado corporation owned by the John Malone family, estimated to be the largest private landowner in the U.S. Basin Ranch Co. dissolved at the end of last year, corporate papers show.
In 2021 Eshelman sold the McKee Ranch to trusts associated with Michael and Kerri Abatti, who list a California address. The conservation easements remain with the properties Eshelman and his companies deeded away, still protecting them from development.
The many transactions leave Iron Bar with the Elk Mountain Ranch, site of last fall’s corner crossing
After officials cited the four hunters, and after they pleaded not guilty in Carbon County Circuit Court, Iron Bar filed its civil complaint in Carbon County District Court seeking, among other things, damages from the four hunters.
“To the fullest extent,” Iron Bar said, “the Court should require Defendants to pay the attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in this litigation, as may be allowed by law.”
Because of where the trespass is alleged to have occurred, the court should penalize the defendants even more, the suit suggests. “The Court should provide other just and appropriate relief to the Plaintiff, the premises considered,” the complaint states.

The businessman and ranch owner is not a stranger to litigation. In 2019 he won a $22.3 million jury verdict in a defamation suit against Puma Biotechnology, an award since reversed on appeal and returned for a new trial on damages alone.
Eshelman also sought a variety of damages in 2020 in a suit filed after he donated $2.5 million to an effort to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the presidential election. Eshelman had donated that amount to True the Vote, a Texas-based group, his suit states.
True the Vote “had organized its Validate the Vote 2020 effort to ensure the 2020 election returns reflect one vote cast by one eligible voter and thereby protect the right to vote and the integrity of the election,” the suit states. Widespread reporting about numerous efforts to overturn the presidential vote results has found no significant violations of election integrity.
By dismissing several of its own lawsuits, True the Vote failed to live up to obligations made in exchange for his “conditional gift,” Eshelman’s suit contends. Eshelman shifted court venues, a law firm representing True the Vote stated.
“[A]fter the attorneys representing both Eshelman and True the Vote had a conference with the federal judge, who cast doubt on his claims, Eshelman voluntarily dismissed that case and immediately filed the identical case in state court,” the Bopp Law Firm said in a post.
Meantime Eshelman seeks to “be by myself in the evenin’ breeze … listen[ing] to the murmur of the cottonwood trees," as the song about the wide-open West goes.
Many of the hunters’ backers on social media see his high-noon showdown as one that could resolve the unsettled corner-crossing issue.

As of Thursday, Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’ GoFundMe campaign had raised $68,905 to support the hunters’ day in court in the hope that someday they, like Roy Rogers, might “wander over yonder … underneath the western skies.”

 

[Cornell Cowboy]

If the property is bordered by USFS then there is a full time Cadastral LS on staff at the region office that can mark this for you, free of charge. It is literally part of that office's job. If you need contact info, please feel free to send me a PM.

Just for clarity in case someone tries to go this route. Basically you ARE on the hook as a private landowner for the cost of a survey. Here's an excerpt of the response I got when I asked the FS about this:

"The Forest Service conducts boundary surveys in connection with projects on the Forest such as timber sales, fuel (vegetation) reduction and land exchanges, but as David mentioned, the agency does not have the resources to provide survey services at the request of adjoining landowners."

 

[Scott85]

These were the best podcasts I’ve listen to hands down!!!

 

[Irrelevant]

I haven't listened to many podcasts lately and probably haven't listened to a fresh track episode in at least a year. But I just finished Ep 2 of this series today. Excellent coverage. Part of me would like to have heard the counter argument and a bit of back and forth between the two sides regarding legal opinions.

I look forward to #3.

 

[glassy]

My point is that this is similar to what I think would be the cost of getting the corner easements that you seem to be describing -- the legal fees and necessary surveying would dwarf the cost of the easement. And, as I have experienced, big landowners can drag their feet for a long time running up legal fees for you. If you want to go to court to enforce the easement, the cost would be much higher (thus my accepting of higher than typical easement rates to avoid court costs).

I have no idea if you listened to the episode or not, but one of the attorneys actually suggested these easements as being put forth by the landowners themselves as an alternative to possible eminent domain of a few feet by BLM at these corners (which he presents an argument as being within the scope of BLM's mission). If BLM took a few feet (and paid the landowner for that) at each corner so that public could access the next section, there would be nothing to prevent them from taking a few more feet to allow for ATV or off-road vehicles. The attorney simply made the statement that a smart landowner might grant easements prior to any eminent domain to ensure that people could only walk over the corners if said landowner saw eminent domain as a realistic possibility.

 

[glassy]

@Big Fin A great couple of episodes on corner crossing. Thanks so much for putting these together and hiring Nick and Tom to dig into these issues.

One thing I'd love to hear about in an episode 3 would be the state game and fish department's interpretations of state statutes on corner crossing. Like in Montana the FWP states that corner crossing is illegal (see here, pg 17). Is that in accordance with a state statute?

As far as I know Wyoming is the only state to (presumably) allow corner crossing. It seems to be "illegal" in most (all?) other western states. Is this simply the game and fish agency claiming that it is illegal to avoid potential enforcement issues, or is this actually in accordance with state statutes. Perhaps more importantly, if corner crossing is illegal by a state statute, that raises a number of questions such as: do those statutes violate the "Unlawful Enclosures Act"? How would those statutes jive with historical legal precedent? Are said statutes still in effect as technology advances and we have digital technologies to assess where boundaries are?

I'd also be curious to hear from Tom and Nick about what constitutes a "legal boundary". Is there a case to be made for the fact that I can see a boundary in real-time on my phone, and my proximity to it, regardless of whether that boundary is marked on the landscape or not?