I donated because I would really like to see a resolution on this issue. But I do think there's something to lose. In particular, if the parcel in question is a State section, the irritated landowner can just purchases the section outright. As an example, see the
Old Elk Ranch purchase east of Laramie for $1.5M precisely because the landowner didn't like the public legally accessing the parcel. The State didn't balk, they just allowed the auction to proceed because from a money generating perspective, it's always in the interest of the State to sell off its sections rather than try to make much less money with grazing fees. So I do worry that we could lose existing accessible State parcels in retaliation for this -- the legislature is not particularly concerned with public access as much as revenue for the State and the benefit of existing stakeholders that make up the legislature.
To me the absolute best-case scenario is that the ruling goes in favor of public access, which forces the large landowners with really deep pockets to push for land swaps to consolidate public and private ownership parcels. But the worse case it that we remove the gray area in a manner that formally blocks public access AND landowners to all they can do to simply purchase public land. In theory, they could push for land sales now, but I don't think enough corner crossers have motivated most of them to pursue this -- as you say, most people are too afraid to corner cross now. That could change...
