Podcast Episodes on Public-Private Property Rights at Intersecting Corners

Hours? No thanks. I'm not that committed to something that doesn't affect me and really none of my business. I got enough on my plate that I can see out the window from this computer. I should be doing all that instead of this. Lunch is over, even for retirees.

My position has been, and is right now, when you own ground with no written easements, you own it as deep as you can dig and as high as you can fly. If I made the laws in Indiana you could shoot trespassers with out warning and sue their estate for a $1000 a day useage fee for their theft of the use of your property at the land owner's desecration.

I'll do my best to ignore this thread now.
It makes me sad we live in the same state
 
I just got my latest issue of Backcountry Journal from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in the mail today, and noticed a short article about corner crossing. They had a link to a "corner crossing" pledge in that piece; just thought I'd post here in case anyone wants to sign it.

 
@Big Fin I think it would make a really interesting episode 3 on this podcast series if you brought together some different stakeholders to talk about some of the different viewpoints on this issue: one or two landowners, BLM or USFS admin, perhaps even a D.A. or U.S. Attorney if you could get one to agree to coming on the show. It'd probably be difficult to get BLM/USFS admin or any government attorney to say anything about anything, but it could be interesting to get their perspectives on the issue.
 
Here's a new article, Corner crossers reach for federal court, access to 1.6M Western acres, describing the hunters' efforts to get their civil case transferred to federal court and their plans to use UIA against the elk mountain ranch. I would be interested in hearing opinions about this in the next podcast.

In this case, specifically the civil case, this landowner is really pushing the envelope. I find this to the benefit of the public access crowd, as many of the civil claims are beyond outrageous. I suspect any property rights organization would ask this landowner to drop his civil claim, as he is risking their position in a big way.

This landowner is making claims under many legal doctrines, much of which would be settled under Federal law and precedent. That could cause the case to move to a Federal court, which I think is being requested by the defendants’ attorneys. That could be a big help for hunters by making any outcome much harder to circumvent by state legislatures.

Hopefully this landowner continues with this legal fishing expedition. Sometimes if you give a person enough rope………….

I am trying to get a Podcast #3 on the books, now that we know a petition for Federal Court has been filed. That is the case with the most substance and given the new venue and Federal laws at play, the civil case could have the best likelihood of real benefit to public recreationists.

There is a good chance that some of the western private property rights groups, such as the Mountain State Legal Foundation, are asking this guy to drop the civil case, which he can at any point. Or, they might be helping behind the scenes if the guy is too bullheaded to look at the bigger picture and the risk he is presenting for others with check board parcels. I say that we spool him all the rope he asks for.

Exploring the each of the claims in the civil case makes for a good illustration of each of the underlying theories supporting the claims and the defenses. If I can get it scheduled, it would not likely air until late April or early May.
 
Imagine yourself owning a piece of land that you pretty much exclusively use for hunting. Put yourself in the landowner's shoes. It really has very little to do with the corner crossing itself and more to do with the presence of others in proximity to my land. I have private land so that I can go hunting and avoid other people (which is also at least part of the reason why I go out West).

To be completely clear I am entirely in favor of getting corner crossing allowed/legalized. The above thought exercise and many of my previous posts were more to put myself in Western landowner's shoes.

Imagine NOT owning any land, and having millions of acres of public land available that you COULD access if landowners collectively decided to act graciously, although it will not be either a collective or gracious decision when/if it happens. Imagine coming out west to hunt antelope in Wyoming Unit __ (insert any unit here) that has 1,000s or 10,000s of acres of additional public walk-in land available instead of 4-5 little tiny 40 acre parcels and 3 pickups trolling them all day. The slob hunters are not the ones who will be taking advantage of corner crossing anyway, it will be hunters on foot who are actually hunting. The ripple effect could be huge, tags, game management, and preference point requirements could all change...it would be how its supposed to be. If somebody needs absolute solitude they can either buy a bigger piece of land or buy land that is surrounded by other private land. I avoid other people when I hunt and fish too, it should not only be a perk of the landed gentry to do so and it would be much, much easier if access was opened up.
 
Imagine NOT owning any land, and having millions of acres of public land available that you COULD access if landowners collectively decided to act graciously, although it will not be either a collective or gracious decision when/if it happens. Imagine coming out west to hunt antelope in Wyoming Unit __ (insert any unit here) that has 1,000s or 10,000s of acres of additional public walk-in land available instead of 4-5 little tiny 40 acre parcels and 3 pickups trolling them all day. The slob hunters are not the ones who will be taking advantage of corner crossing anyway, it will be hunters on foot who are actually hunting. The ripple effect could be huge, tags, game management, and preference point requirements could all change...it would be how its supposed to be. If somebody needs absolute solitude they can either buy a bigger piece of land or buy land that is surrounded by other private land. I avoid other people when I hunt and fish too, it should not only be a perk of the landed gentry to do so and it would be much, much easier if access was opened up.
Well said..
 
Randy just listened to your podcasts on corner crossings. What you and the lawyers discussed is pretty well settled here in Michigan using the public trust doctrine for the use of the great lakes shoreline (Lipparian Rights), very similar legal issues. Guess I couldn't see why this had gone on for so long out there. The wyoming hunters should file a counter suit against the deep pockets land owner, he's got a lot to loose!
 
@Big Fin

Just a suggestion, but I would be very interested in another round of legal analysis from the two attorneys from the podcast you did on this. There have been a lot of developments since then. I, as a legal layman, have a lot of questions at this point. Some things on my mind...

-what, if any, effect the not guilty verdict potentially may have on the civil trial.

-whether or not serving summons in front of the jury pool prior to selection is as bad as it looks from here.

-why the judge used the definition of land in her jury instructions that both of them felt was outdated.

-thoughts on whether the recent charges pertaining to 2020 will stick after a not guilty verdict.

Just a suggestion, as this case has consumed a lot of people's thoughts this last week.
 
@Big Fin

Just a suggestion, but I would be very interested in another round of legal analysis from the two attorneys from the podcast you did on this. There have been a lot of developments since then. I, as a legal layman, have a lot of questions at this point. Some things on my mind...

-what, if any, effect the not guilty verdict potentially may have on the civil trial.

-whether or not serving summons in front of the jury pool prior to selection is as bad as it looks from here.

-why the judge used the definition of land in her jury instructions that both of them felt was outdated.

-thoughts on whether the recent charges pertaining to 2020 will stick after a not guilty verdict.

Just a suggestion, as this case has consumed a lot of people's thoughts this last week.
Tom, one of the attorneys on the podcasts, went to Rawlins and sat through the entire trial. He and I are trying to coordinate schedules (I'm the biggest complication to that) so we can do another podcast that touches on most of these topics and gives more insight to the importance and possible outcomes of the civil case that is now awaiting in Federal Court.
 
Tom, one of the attorneys on the podcasts, went to Rawlins and sat through the entire trial. He and I are trying to coordinate schedules (I'm the biggest complication to that) so we can do another podcast that touches on most of these topics and gives more insight to the importance and possible outcomes of the civil case that is now awaiting in Federal Court.
Thank you. I will wait with bated breath.
 
Tom, one of the attorneys on the podcasts, went to Rawlins and sat through the entire trial. He and I are trying to coordinate schedules (I'm the biggest complication to that) so we can do another podcast that touches on most of these topics and gives more insight to the importance and possible outcomes of the civil case that is now awaiting in Federal Court.
Randy, is Tom's neck sore from shaking his head in disbelief so many times in three days?
 
@Big Fin

Just a suggestion, but I would be very interested in another round of legal analysis from the two attorneys from the podcast you did on this. There have been a lot of developments since then. I, as a legal layman, have a lot of questions at this point. Some things on my mind...

-what, if any, effect the not guilty verdict potentially may have on the civil trial.

-whether or not serving summons in front of the jury pool prior to selection is as bad as it looks from here.

-why the judge used the definition of land in her jury instructions that both of them felt was outdated.

-thoughts on whether the recent charges pertaining to 2020 will stick after a not guilty verdict.

Just a suggestion, as this case has consumed a lot of people's thoughts this last week.

I'm reposting these points from @woods89 and I'm seeking questions/comments from the rest of you for the podcast we are recording tomorrow. Over the last month we have worked on the outline for Podcast #3 that we will record tomorrow. It is scheduled to be published on January 30.

Here's my request - Do any of you have other issues/tangents/questions you would like us to address?

Not sure we can get to all of them, but if I knew what is on the mind of more people, I would try to incorporate some of those topics in the outline we will work from. Thanks in advance for your input.
 
I'm reposting these points from @woods89 and I'm seeking questions/comments from the rest of you for the podcast we are recording tomorrow. Over the last month we have worked on the outline for Podcast #3 that we will record tomorrow. It is scheduled to be published on January 30.

Here's my request - Do any of you have other issues/tangents/questions you would like us to address?

Not sure we can get to all of them, but if I knew what is on the mind of more people, I would try to incorporate some of those topics in the outline we will work from. Thanks in advance for your input.
Should be interesting!
 
Why the defendants should have to foot the bill for the suit on loss of property value. Shouldn’t the Realtor/title agency being sued for misleading the value of what he actually owned?
Actually this topic in general would be great to hear a bunch of thoughts about.

Basically in a very general broad view, can an adjacent property owner's actions that directly negatively impact your property, lead to you being entitled to compensation for lost value? I think if it starts there, the discussion then could proceed into whether or not the legality of corner crossing negatively impacts property owners.
 
Actually this topic in general would be great to hear a bunch of thoughts about.

Basically in a very general broad view, can an adjacent property owner's actions that directly negatively impact your property, lead to you being entitled to compensation for lost value? I think if it starts there, the discussion then could proceed into whether or not the legality of corner crossing negatively impacts property owners.
I know of situations where landowners had to pay neighbors for chemical drift from spraying fields in conventional ag that drift into organic crops. Not similar to this situation but does fit your question about compensation from adjacent property owners.


.
 
So we know the Carbon County verdict has no legal bearing on other jurisdictions. But......

1. Would the civil victory, if achieved, have any legal bearing?
2. Would these victories SWAY public opinion in a manner as to HELP in other jurisdictions?
 
How will Eshleman’s attorneys prove that the corner crossing negatively impacted his property value without there being any physical damage to corroborate their claims or without the ranch having been sold on the open market at a loss?

The opinion that his property value is now diminished is nothing other than (a/several?)real estate agent’s opinion of diminished market value.


If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know how the rationale justifying awarded damages in this case could be applied to other cases equally.
 
Last edited:
How will Eshleman’s attorneys prove that the corner crossing negatively impacted his property value without there being any physical damage to corroborate their claims or without the ranch having been sold on the open market at a loss?

The opinion that his property value is now diminished has nothing other than (a/several?)real estate agent’s opinion of diminished market value.


If I were a member of the jury, I would want to know how the rationale justifying awarded damages in this case could be applied to other cases equally.

I agree with this, but even if the property value were diminished, I don't understand how someone doing something lawful on public land, that reduces the value of someone's adjacent property, is something you can sue someone successfully for.

There's all sort of things folks do, and have done, on public land, that if they didn't otherwise, may add or reduce value to adjacent private property. Seems we'd be opening the door for private land owners being able to sue someone who hunts along a private property boundary, but on public land. If instead, no one hunted within a quarter mile of the boundary, a similar argument could be made that the private property adjacent to that public land is more valuable.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,079
Messages
1,980,654
Members
35,455
Latest member
sromer2715
Back
Top