I think he also is responding to the previous year, 2020, and that is now part of the case as I understand it. “Smith, Yeomans and Cape had crossed at public-private corners in 2020, she wrote. At that time “[t]hey reportedly spun their bodies around the T posts,” marking the private property, Davis wrote in her response.” “Referencing the 2020 incident, Davis said additional charges have now been filed. She requested that the circuit court allow trespassing to hunt be considered as an alternate charge to criminal trespass and stated it should apply to the hunters present in 2020.”
Good tips from the Sinaloa Cartel for such tunnel activity. Mineral rights, anyone?
However who votes for County Attorney? Residents of the county, I believe. Seems pockets pay for elections and landowners prefer an attorney that protects their interests.
I've always found voting for Sheriff's to be a challenge for integrity. Witnessed the vile political power plays from those whom I believed should always strive to be beyond reproach.
I can only imagine questionable County Attorney elected seats such as Carbon County with an average of 2 persons per sq mile.
Granted this can be read from various perspectives though two is very low for average counties I checked. Large(r) swaths per person, more push for elected to represent accordingly. Roughly same population currently as 2010.
NECALI
Well-known member
I would think the public, hunters included, would be way better off if we had access to all our land, rather than the HMA on Elk Mt. I don’t know if all ranch owners did away with HMA’s if we would be better off or not. I’ve hunted on several HMA’s in WY. and really do appreciate the owners willingness to open their land to hunters. It sounds like the Private Ranch in question on Elk Mt. doesn’t open the whole ranch up to hunters during the whole season anyway. But kudos to them if they open most of it up for late season cow hunts.
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
Yes, I agree we'd be better off also, but I also appreciate the HMA’S and other access programs WY has, and I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am just trying to think of all the unforeseen consequences when you break a leg on the landing.
seeth07
Well-known member
No Kudos to them here if you actually see what they open up as part of the hma program
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
Yeah, and that hunt sounds real fun. By the time the elk are down on the ridge, the county road is impassible. I know people kill elk on it but I sure don't see the attraction.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,129
Last edited:
Haha. Sure looks like it.
The fact that he’s richer than I thought makes me like him even less. A person that rich shouldn’t be concerned about stupid litigation. My discredited source:
Attachments
RobG
Well-known member
That's why, IMO, the court battle has to be about whether or not the landowner can block a corner, not whether or not using a ladder to walk over a barrier is trespassing.
seeth07
Well-known member
I'm personally really torn on that concept myself being a landowner.
Right now I'm getting super irritated with the stupid government telling me what I can and cannot do with a property I just purchased in January. We had plans on things we wanted to do with the property and it's being a real pain in the ass going through the process. It's difficult, lots of paperwork and it's ending up costing a lot of money as well. The last item, money, is probably all they care about and want in the end so this isn't quite apples to oranges here but as a principle, I'm really 100% pro landowner rights and their ability to enjoy those lands. Is crossing a corner going to prevent me from either of those things? No....hell no, not even a tiny but. But what if I don't like looking at my neighbors ugly face? Easy, build a tall enough fence so I don't have to see it. If I want to put up a 10 foot pole on each of my kiddy corner parcels, no one should prevent me from doing so, I should be able to no matter for what reason.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
In all cases, there is a point the individual property rights begin to hinder the property rights of others. As such, it is proper to regulate in favor of the non-hindering right owners. Hence set backs, etc.
But isn't it true, even with a fence, you have to be so many feet off the property line. I would think the same would hold true for posts or any 'structure' that is not there naturally. And I dont want to give anyone ideas, but what happens if a landowner plants a tree right next to the pin? Would the state/hunter be able to cut it down?
Addicting
Well-known member
3/4 of its crown
seeth07
Well-known member
Not sure about WY but in Wisconsin, the vertical plane at the property line applies to any portion of a tree. So you can literally cut off every tiny branch of a tree so long as the cut is made on your side of the property line. I've literally seen a tree trunk cut to the property line in a scenario where the one neighbor wanted the tree gone while the other wanted to keep it. So the guy that didn't want it said fine, watch this. Took his chain saw and cut through like 3/4 of it and stopped at the property line.
seeth07
Well-known member
Yes, I hear ya there and understand it. However, in this particular case, there potentially could be no hinderance to the public as you can simply enter from another way or corner. Hinderance does not equal convenience.
By the way, I'm more or less just playing some devil's advocate here. As a western public land hunter, I of course would love to see this end in the best possible scenario for public land access. There is just a little part of me that makes me think deep about the private land owner and their rights because part of what makes America so great is the fact that a person born with nothing can work their ass off and claim some dirt as their own. That's truly a powerful thing.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Gee, I would love to have that guy as a neighbor - not.
Similar threads
