WY corner hopping is trespass

[konasage]

Back on Point, Corner Jumping..... The amount of public land that is not used because of these access issues is huge. One of the big ones here too is cliffs on the corner where you need to rappel into some areas and jug out with meat sacs, works though... Public land is public land, we should be able to use it. Its no good as public if its part of a outfitters private "stash".

 

[MN Public Hunter]

When I was looking to hunt WY 2 years ago and I asked about checker board land I was told about this trespass issue due to the land not actually butting up right next to each other and you would need to cross private no matter wht to even corner hop. It's all about where the real line is.

You could argue this til you are all blue in the face and in the end just corner hop until you get told not too, easy solution.

 

[kansasdad]

You could argue this til you are all blue in the face and in the end just corner hop until you get told not too, easy solution.

I've heard the axiom "its easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission", but the forgiveness may come only with a trespassing charge that you would have to defend against.


I've been in the truck with my Uncle Dutch when he confronted guys who "knew" they were on BLM land, but were actually one drainage over from where they "knew" they were. (GPS was just a sci-fi dream back then) After the tongue lashing I bet they made SURE they stayed on public. Uncle Dutch knew some very colorful words, and he used them all that day!

 

[Sytes]

I think this is fuggin wrong...

What is the status of Montana law on this? Is it legal or illegal to access America's land at a corner?
A "friend" accesses America's land via America's land at a corner junction point. Marked private at two trees with 5' of space between the two trees at the corner. Wait, come to think of it, I don't even know this "friends" name... don't recall a description of him (or her for that matter)... Can't help anyone with info to prosecute - sorry, faded memory.

Anyhow, back to my question, would this be legal or not?

 

[BRI]

I think it is considered illegal. However, you may or may not be charged depending upon where you are in the world.

 

[schmalts]

Schmalts - I agree there is no proof that you are trespassing if there is no monumented corner. Make no mistake, I'm in favor of corner crossing to access our public lands. I just feel the burden is on the hunter to know for 100% certain he isn't trespassing. And a recreational GPS isn't accurate enough at this point. There are many fencelines here that are not on the actual property line either. I don't think it is their responsibility to make sure I know where the actual property line is.

You are correct it is the hunters burden to make sure he is on public land. He should use every source to find out or not. If there is not a corner marker than he uses the best he can (gps, maps) . If the best he can use is also the best the land owner uses to complain and press charges then he better be able to back it up in court and our laws say that burden is on the prosecution. NO ONE should be found guilty in a court that follows our constitution on evidence that some land owner said "he was on my land" Prove it, get a survey done or he should shut his pie hole. It sucks for the land owner but law is law and the burden of proof is and always will be the prosecutions duty. Is it wrong for a hunter to guess and have the attitude "hey, he cant prove it was his land" and just walk through? Yea it is a piss poor way of hunting but on the other hand if he does the best he can and a crab ass rancher lays claim to what is not his own the land owner better be able to back it up.
Bottom line, I feel if a hunter uses better means to determine the corner than the land owner (fence corner or what grandpa told him) the hunter should not ever be cited. If he is cited, a Judge should ask the prosecution what PROOF he has that is more solid than what the hunter used as a means of finding the corner.
The Constitution gives us that, weather or not some judge follows it is another thing.

Look at this way, if you were going to buy a ranch and the seller said "it is 500 acres" are you going to fork over the money and buy it for the price of what 500 acres would cost or are you going to make sure your really getting 500 acres instead of say, 475?? Every parcel of land I ever bought i required in the offer that a survey be done. I tell you this, more than once I ended up getting less land than advertised.

 

[mdhunter]

Alright guys, I hunted antelope several years ago in southern WY and I admit to corner hopping. Being from the east coast the thought of tresspassing while stepping over a corner never occurred to me. I mean really, WTF?

I never hunted, shot, marched, vandalized, mutilated, desecrated, or touched the private land. I stepped over and onto more public land. I would say I am sorry but honestly I don't mean it. Splitting hairs over mere inches seems crazy to me. Would I do it again, I guess not after reading this thread. I have enough bonus points I will apply elsewhere where the issue doesn't apply. But seriously, everyone knows what is public land and what is private land. Can I really not step foot over a corner?

 

[Big Fin]

Correct!! RY has clear cut and then the Forest Service has bought it back... this goes all the way back to the 70s and 80s!

Those RY sections ( if you are talking about the Bangtails and north Bridgers) were part of the Gallatin I and Gallatin II land exchanges with Big Sky Lumber in the mid and late 1990s. RY got them from BSL following that exchange. In that process we consolidated hundreds of thousands of public land acres that were going to be cut off to public access.

Appraisals were done and values balanced. Everyone knew BSL/RY would log the hell out of them. And, the logged off parcels received from BSL in the exchange were valued very low, so it was not like we traded logged off wasteland for virgin timber. Gallatin I and II were the best things to happen to public access in SW MT, even if some parcels were sacrificed in the process.

If the parcels you refer to are not the ones RY bought from BSL and part of the Gallatin exchanges, please disregard the comments.

 

[Big Fin]

You're living in a fantasy land if you think Montana or the "west" will ever change/adopt a policy where the public will be able to roam free and cross me land whenever they please because there is a half section of state land behind it... that is delusion, madness, anarchy.

That is not what my post is about. Private is private. Don't want to imply that I expect access across private. My point is that I should be able to step from public to public without being arrested for trespassing.

The only reason I know of to prohibit the public from crossing where corners meet is to deny access to public lands. If there are other valid reasons to deny such public to public access, I have yet to hear a compelling argument.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That's because there are no compelling arguments against corner jumping and there is absolutely no reason at all other than denying us access to the public lands that we are even having this discussion!

 

[jlmatthew]

I’m not sure there is anything that pisses me off more than a road headed to public land, that is then blocked by private with public on the other side and the landowner uses the roads on the public ground. Almost gives me a stroke.

This is a big problem in Colorado for sure

 

[SWMontana1]

Those RY sections ( if you are talking about the Bangtails and north Bridgers) were part of the Gallatin I and Gallatin II land exchanges with Big Sky Lumber in the mid and late 1990s. RY got them from BSL following that exchange. In that process we consolidated hundreds of thousands of public land acres that were going to be cut off to public access.

Appraisals were done and values balanced. Everyone knew BSL/RY would log the hell out of them. And, the logged off parcels received from BSL in the exchange were valued very low, so it was not like we traded logged off wasteland for virgin timber. Gallatin I and II were the best things to happen to public access in SW MT, even if some parcels were sacrificed in the process.

If the parcels you refer to are not the ones RY bought from BSL and part of the Gallatin exchanges, please disregard the comments.

As a private land owner in the Bangtails... I guess I see things a little bit differently. And as for the appraisals.... they were nowhere near balanced. The appraisals were over valuing private land and under valuing public land..... From my perspective I thought it wasn't that good of a deal since I get to see first hand what RY does with the land... but the checkerboard and consolidation of public land was a good deal for the general public.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"RY has clear cut and then the Forest Service has bought it back... this goes all the way back to the 70s and 80s!"

As a neighbor of RY land in north Bridgers, I know of no land they have "clear cut" and sold back to USFS. They have selectively logged (in a highly sensitive and acceptable way) and then sold acreage to private parties. The Gallatin I & II land exchanges were critical for consolidating upper Gallatin wildlife habitat and preventing certain further development.

RY also logged lands south of Anaconda in a highly responsible way. Then Ron Yanke (then RY owner, now deceased) cut a very generous deal with RMEF and much of that area went back into elk habitat through RMEF's program to revert the land to public. Sure, RY was paid for the land, but at a much, much lower price than a developer would have paid.

As a neighbor of RY and as a supporter of RMEF, I applaud the actions of RY Lumber in their efforts to support wildlife and hunting in Montana.

Back to topic, I agree that the corner "hopping" should be decided legally in favor of access to public lands.

 

[SWMontana1]

"RY has clear cut and then the Forest Service has bought it back... this goes all the way back to the 70s and 80s!"

As a neighbor of RY land in north Bridgers, I know of no land they have "clear cut" and sold back to USFS. They have selectively logged (in a highly sensitive and acceptable way) and then sold acreage to private parties. The Gallatin I & II land exchanges were critical for consolidating upper Gallatin wildlife habitat and preventing certain further development.

RY also logged lands south of Anaconda in a highly responsible way. Then Ron Yanke (then RY owner, now deceased) cut a very generous deal with RMEF and much of that area went back into elk habitat through RMEF's program to revert the land to public. Sure, RY was paid for the land, but at a much, much lower price than a developer would have paid.

As a neighbor of RY and as a supporter of RMEF, I applaud the actions of RY Lumber in their efforts to support wildlife and hunting in Montana.

Back to topic, I agree that the corner "hopping" should be decided legally in favor of access to public lands.

Can those your land and those RY lands be seen from the road? In my case, they can not so it has been clear cut.

 

[Straight Arrow]

"Can those your land and those RY lands be seen from the road? In my case, they can not so it has been clear cut."

No, the lands are out of public view. They are still not clear-cut.

Is it your contention that any logging not seen from the road is "clear cut"? Please clarify.

 

[SWMontana1]

Straight...

I own land bodering and surrounded by RY. It is about 6 miles from Bridger Canyon Road so the public can not see it, I am the only one who can. It was clear cut about 15 years ago when they took all the lodgepole pines just recently RY has came back and clear cut everything in sight because they want the Doug Fir.... so in my circumstrance, I see clear cutting all the time.

 

[BuzzH]

If its lodgepole...you dont really have any other options, other than clear cutting.

Try leaving lodgepole via select harvest, shelterwood, etc. and the next 20 mph wind will topple the rest.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Also, consider that "clear-cutting" only recently became a derogatory term regarding logging practices. It was completely acceptable for at least a hundred years and was the standard practice, whether it be on private or public land. The clear-cutting of today does typically employ measures to mitigate erosion problems and, in some cases, to soften the viewshed impact. (ie: leaving small island stands of timber, cutting irregular perimeters, etc.) So I still stand behind my support of RY.

But I would like to legally "corner hop" public sections in their neighborhood.

 

[Sytes]

Tree chopping, clear cutting... Federal land turned Plum Creek turned back to Federal, state or whomever - If it is a checkerboard and public intersects public at a corner... Would it not be true there is a fragment of dead space at those 4 points of contact? IMO, there is just as much a valid touch between public as there is of private...

And kudo's to this comment / question...

The only reason I know of to prohibit the public from crossing where corners meet is to deny access to public lands. If there are other valid reasons to deny such public to public access, I have yet to hear a compelling argument.

This is the question - blocking America's property is about as anti-American as it gets regarding land. Hate using that generic comment of "Anti-American", though this is one where I find it fitting.

 

[krshunter]

I am a professional land surveyor by profession in Wyoming and try to follow things like this closely. Below is an article from the most recent case I am personally aware of. My experience is it is currently county dependant however as some county attorneys and judges want to refer to the this state statute:

10-4-302.� Ownership of space.

The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath subject to the right of flight described in W.S. 10-4-303.

In the 2011 general legislative session HB0171 was introduced defining and legalizing corner crossing by specifically saying if the person does not "touch" the private property but it did include legal improvements as private property which would mean fences. The bill was voted down 0-9 and did not come out of committee.

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
GREEN RIVER - Douglas hunter Bill Kearney always suspected it wasn't illegal to corner jump over private land while hunting. Now he has a state opinion backing up his contention.
The Douglas sportsmen was acquitted of trespass charges in April after he used a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to step from one parcel of public land to another while hunting in Albany County in September 2003. The practice is known as corner jumping or corner crossing.
The case prompted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to seek a State Attorney General opinion reviewing the agency's long-standing assumption that corner jumping is illegal.
The AG opinion released by the department said corner jumping from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt on the other public parcel does not violate Game and Fish regulations.
The opinion said corner jumping does not violate agency rules because, to be convicted, the rules require a person must hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission. Corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said.
"I'm just delighted with (the opinion) and think it's great … it was certainly worth spending the money and challenging this in court," Kearney said.
"A real positive aspect of the opinion is with the increasing pressure from hunters and sportsmen and rockhounds and whoever … it's a good thing that could result in public access to large tracts of public lands," he said.
"The Game and Fish can now use its license fee money and not waste their time dealing with people legally accessing public lands in court."
Corner jumping describes the practice of stepping over the corner created where four sections of land meet in order to reach a cater-corner parcel of public lands.
Kearney stepped from one parcel of public land to another. The parcels met at a corner where two pieces of private land also meet.
Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland said the opinion means the agency will change its method of handling corner jumping complaints.
"If somebody calls us and tells us there's corner jumping occurring, we'll simply tell them we don't have the authority to do something about it," Cleveland said in a phone interview.
"If they call us on a trespass situation and we get out there and find it's a corner jumping complaint … then we'll tell them they should take it up with the county sheriff or the county attorney," he said.
Bob Wharff, executive director for Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said while he fears the ruling might chip away at private property rights, it could lead to more open and frank discussions about access to public lands.
"Even the best GPS units that are available are only accurate to three meters and three meters doesn't get you close enough to say you're actually jumping from corner to corner," Wharff said in an interview.
"I think it's a dangerous precedent that the opinion sets … we're all for access, but I'm real nervous about private property rights and the erosion of those rights," he said.
"But on the other hand, we may see that there's going to be a little bit more willingness for landowners to come to the table and talk about access … and ultimately help us broach some of those roadblocks (to access) that may have been there in the past."
Southwest Wyoming bureau reporter Jeff Gearino can be reached at (307) 875-5359




​