Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[JM77]

With the millions of acres of public lands not accessible in Wyoming, I am disappointed at some of the groups that support our public lands use, but are staying out of this battle. I can't hesitate to think their membership has to wonder about this. The lines drawn here are very similar to what we had in the lands transfer battle or even stream laws, if not identical.

If the groups that represent us, don't take to the battlefield, especially pertaining to public land access, credibility is on the line.

Cheers to Wyo BHA and Rinella, and those yet to jump into the cause!

 

[Pestcontrol]

Cal nails it with this podcast, a simple explanation of how we are locked out of 6.35 Million acres. A great concise explanation and background of the issue. https://www.themeateater.com/listen...er-crossing-legislation-and-undersea-mammoths

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Cal nails it with this podcast, a simple explanation of how we are locked out of 6.35 Million acres. A great concise explanation and background of the issue. https://www.themeateater.com/listen...er-crossing-legislation-and-undersea-mammoths

Glad Cal is covering it. Just Saw that Rokslide reposted Rinella's 'gram post too. I didn't expect that, good for them!

 

[COEngineer]

Glad Cal is covering it. Just Saw that Rokslide reposted Rinella's 'gram post too. I didn't expect that, good for them!

Put in "Cal" as a promo code at https://store.themeateater.com and the proceeds go to the GoFundMe for the corner crossers.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Put in "Cal" as a promo code at https://store.themeateater.com and the proceeds go to the GoFundMe for the corner crossers.

Really? That's an awesome move by the Meateater folks.

 

[COEngineer]

With the millions of acres of public lands not accessible in Wyoming, I am disappointed at some of the groups that support our public lands use, but are staying out of this battle. I can't hesitate to think their membership has to wonder about this. The lines drawn here are very similar to what we had in the lands transfer battle or even stream laws, if not identical.

If the groups that represent us, don't take to the battlefield, especially pertaining to public land access, credibility is on the line.

Cheers to Wyo BHA and Rinella, and those yet to jump into the cause!

I'm not sure this is fair. If I were running a business (or even if I'm just a concerned citizen), I think it would be reasonable to be cautious about getting involved in a criminal case. I think there are probably a lot of businesses and people who would support a political campaign to revise/clarify statutes in each of the states to explicitly legalize corner crossing, but who are unwilling to step into the current quagmire of legal opinions.

 

[Carnage2011]

I'm not sure this is fair. If I were running a business (or even if I'm just a concerned citizen), I think it would be reasonable to be cautious about getting involved in a criminal case. I think there are probably a lot of businesses and people who would support a political campaign to revise/clarify statutes in each of the states to explicitly legalize corner crossing, but who are unwilling to step into the current quagmire of legal opinions.

If you run a business that revolves around public land and public access then you should support this. No reason not too. Your customers are public land users and they want access to public land.

 

[Wild Bill]

If you run a business that revolves around public land and public access then you should support this. No reason not too. Your customers are public land users and they want access to public land.

Some of their customers may also be private land owners who may feel as if the 4 men infringed on the accusers private property rights. Hell, there are public land owners who are not comfortable with what the 4 men did. Why would companies/businesses/nonprofits alienate one demographic of their customers to appease the other? Taking what may be a controversial stance is not going to sway the potential outcome of this case. Staying in their lane and doing what they do best (sell products/raise funds/etc.) is a fine move. Kind of like when BHA refuses to take any stance on gun control measures...

 

[Southern Elk]

Some of their customers may also be private land owners who may feel as if the 4 men infringed on the accusers private property rights. Hell, there are public land owners who are not comfortable with what the 4 men did. Why would companies/businesses/nonprofits alienate one demographic of their customers to appease the other? Taking what may be a controversial stance is not going to sway the potential outcome of this case. Staying in their lane and doing what they do best (sell products/raise funds/etc.) is a fine move. Kind of like when BHA refuses to take any stance on gun control measures...

I doubt there's a very big demographic for any outdoor company that consists of rich guys who landlock public land by not allowing corner crossing.

 

[Jbotto]

I'm seeing this get more traction on some FB groups too. I donated, but am surprised that BHA couldn't have done this through their website rather than use GFM. Small gripe, but I'm liking the support I'm seeing on this.

 

[jryoung]

I'm seeing this get more traction on some FB groups too. I donated, but am surprised that BHA couldn't have done this through their website rather than use GFM. Small gripe, but I'm liking the support I'm seeing on this.

(Guessing here as a recovering accountant) Probably a lot less work not having to create a ledger or subleger specifically earmarking all these donations and accounting for all the funds and moving cash around once invoices from legal are sent.....using GFM isolates all the accounting and probably keeps it a lot cleaner. It also keeps donation amounts public.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

If you run a business that revolves around public land and public access then you should support this. No reason not too. Your customers are public land users and they want access to public land.

It seems to me that some public land advocates may be playing the long game and choosing a strategy that they think will do the most good in the long run. It's not hard to see this case being a good short-term/bad long-term kind of deal. I think the consensus of public land users and advocates is that we want to be able to access these properties, but the complexity of the problem is probably not going away for quite a while.

QQ

 

[Nameless Range]

Some of their customers may also be private land owners who may feel as if the 4 men infringed on the accusers private property rights. Hell, there are public land owners who are not comfortable with what the 4 men did. Why would companies/businesses/nonprofits alienate one demographic of their customers to appease the other? Taking what may be a controversial stance is not going to sway the potential outcome of this case. Staying in their lane and doing what they do best (sell products/raise funds/etc.) is a fine move. Kind of like when BHA refuses to take any stance on gun control measures...

I don’t see this as being much different than a gun company speaking out against more restrictive gun control measures. There are probably many gun owners who actually support more restrictive gun control measures, but they are in the minority. I think this could also be said analogously for folks to hunt public land and their feelings toward corner crossing. Most would prefer a future where it is allowed.

I also just think generally, society is desperate for businesses and groups with a spine.

 

[TOGIE]

the more people that know about the issue the better.

that's essentially what rinella is doing - making people aware. and while he clearly thinks corner cross should be allowed he's not exactly making a statement on the hunters guilt of criminal trespass either way.

largely he's making people aware that this is a big deal and he's pushing support to help cover their legal costs too.

at the end of the day companies just need to use this opportunity to make people aware. they don't need to make a definitive statement, but if they care about public lands and access, this is an opportunity to get people aware and involved. and in the end that's what will drive favorable outcomes towards public land access, people being aware and involved.

i then see no excuses to stay silent from any org or company that promotes public land and access if you think of it from that angle.

 

[Jbotto]

(Guessing here as a recovering accountant) Probably a lot less work not having to create a ledger or subleger specifically earmarking all these donations and accounting for all the funds and moving cash around once invoices from legal are sent.....using GFM isolates all the accounting and probably keeps it a lot cleaner. It also keeps donation amounts public.

Fair enough! I didn’t think about that. Thanks for clarifying this!

 

[Highcountry Hunter]

This is a solid issue and from what I know, they did everything right including informing WGFD in advance, going out of their way to keep it legal and just trying to hunt public ground while respecting private property. As a private landowner myself that mostly hunts public land (not as much fun to hunt your own spread for big game), I struggle seeing the wealthy pay to play outfits getting their way too often - and these folks have a major negative reputation of hunter harassment. Corner crossing is going to be an important access issue to resolve in the West. Kudos to BHA and the folks at MeatEater and everyone else supporting these guys and pushing those funds to Access Yes! Hopefully these charges/tickets will be dismissed and our WY friends can take this up with the legislature for better or worse.

 

[Buschy]

Donation sent and hoping for the best. Thanks to everyone stepping up!

 

[Carnage2011]

Some of their customers may also be private land owners who may feel as if the 4 men infringed on the accusers private property rights. Hell, there are public land owners who are not comfortable with what the 4 men did. Why would companies/businesses/nonprofits alienate one demographic of their customers to appease the other? Taking what may be a controversial stance is not going to sway the potential outcome of this case. Staying in their lane and doing what they do best (sell products/raise funds/etc.) is a fine move. Kind of like when BHA refuses to take any stance on gun control measures...

Sometimes controversy is the right thing to do. Everyone is so afraid to piss someone off these days. If you are building your customer base on public land users then stand up for what’s right.

 

[MNElkNut]

I wonder if there will be any repercussions for hanging a chain on public property? Same rules should apply...no way to get that chain from private to private without encroaching on public airspace. Which the landowner would either have to plead guilty to or would make the case for the public having the right to encroach on their airspace!

 

[Sytes]

Operate a first Amendment protest with media coverage... gather a couple hundred people to walk back and forth across the corner... (not it though I'll take pics. ) Get some national news on it.

Plugged another donation. Did this for Rob, this holds some interesting potential - though, as mentioned earlier, if there's even a hint they may lose, I fear they'll drop the case and leave as a civil matter. Shit ton of landowners involved with checkerboard sealing off of public land vested in their activity. Can't see they're too happy to see a legal precedent actually take place, at the expense of their current ability to go after anyone civilly - they have the $$$ to civilly attorney bulldoze a public land hunter (for the most part).