I think the anachronistic law u are referring to comes out of an old European doctrine. But I was referring to the actual WY law the judge “instructed” the jury to take into considerations which to me was bullshit. I mean why wouldn’t she instruct them as well then to take into consideration the state attorney general opinion letter on it being not illegal. Idk it just seems she’s really dumb and now making a fool of herself simply to make a point at the expense of taxpayers dollars. No common sense here in my opinion
Also robbing a bank is obviously a criminal law and no one in America would say it’s legal to rob a bank. I don’t think CC and robbing a bank are fair comparison. The circumstances in 2020 and 2021 or differences there of shouldn’t matter whether there were eye witnesses of them crossing or ladders involved or conversations had w game and fish or sheriff or any other differences in those yrs. All of that is just smoke and mirrors. They openly admitted crossing the corners both yrs. That’s the essence of the case in a nutshell. Nothing else matters. The only issue at stake is it illegal to corner cross. The jury said it isn’t. Why retry for the same offense? Nothing else has changed.
JM77
Well-known member
The judges opinion is that the AG opinion is wrong.
JM77
Well-known member
From this article, what would you gather was there in 2020?Here's one article that seems to indicate the hunters didn't use a ladder in 2020:
Corner-crossing video: ‘Do they realize how much money my boss has?’
A Carbon County sheriff’s deputy and a Wyoming Game and Fish officer spent more than 16 minutes with the Elk Mountain Ranch manager during their response to a hunting trespasswww.wyomingnews.com
Quote from the article:
"That seven-page document, not counting attachments, is Davis’ response to the hunters’ motion to dismiss the charges. Davis asserts that 2021 was the second year in a row the hunters had crossed corners in the area.
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.
One of the men contacted Davis after the 2020 trip, the county attorney wrote. Although authorities issued no citations in 2020, “the charges were pending,” her filing states.
In 2021, the men used a fence ladder to climb over two T posts on two adjacent and kitty-corner parcels of Elk Mountain Ranch property. The two posts were chained and wired together, according to a photograph purporting to show the corner in question."
Apparently so. She’s an idiot too. That whole county is retarded it seems lol. I mean u have every law enforcement agency from the state’s own game and fish agency to the county sheriff saying we will not write citations due the fact we perceive it as legal to cross and yet here goes the DA saying let’s charge them again for the sane crime. This is beyond hillarious. Just let that soak in, Wyoming’s own game and fish enforcement agency that is hired by the state of wyoming that is in total charge of enforcing game laws and poaching and trespassing is on record saying we don’t believe it is illegal
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Sounds like the T posts were there, but not sure if the chain was? Either way, it sounds like they did not use a ladder in 2020, like they did in 2021. But apparently you know more about it than I do? Why not just tell me if I'm wrong?
JM77
Well-known member
I can't say 100% that the chain was there, so I won't say that.
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
90/10 should fix that
In 2020, one difference is they shot a bull, then the logic became, how did they get there to shoot the bull without crossing?
One issue I have is consistency, fishing for example. It is 100% legal to float a river across private and fish it, it's also legal to get out of the boat to bypass obstacles. How does that align with this????
One issue I have is consistency, fishing for example. It is 100% legal to float a river across private and fish it, it's also legal to get out of the boat to bypass obstacles. How does that align with this????
JM77
Well-known member
I'm not sure I have ever heard the G&F say CC is not illegal. They do abide by the AG opinion and not write the ticket. Lack of intent to hunt. And there is no place in Wyoming law that specifically says CC is illegal.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
If it doesn't then I have an idea for the Task Force. Only 1 NR tag of any kind every 3 years. Does anyone have Sy's phone number?
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
They should just call all new licenses "Type-Sy".
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
I don’t think you are getting it… the unit has leftover tags every yr and can be drawn w no points. Residents don’t want the tag either because of the very reasons of this case. 90/10 doesn’t fix leftovers! Jesus
Well if it’s not specifically illegal that makes legal in my mind but who knows
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
I'm the one not getting it? You sure about this?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
There is zero basis in American law for your conclusion.
But of course, many of us share your frustration.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This is not only a game and fish issue. There is a dispute about the application of basic property law/trespass - which predates modern G&F regulations for literally centuries.
If you cannot imagine a legitimate reason why a meaningful number of trained professionals don’t see things exactly as you do, I think you have to look in the mirror for the one who is missing the point.
It seems that way unless I’m missing something? Or misunderstanding you? U said earlier the bigger issue was a NR drawing it two years in a row. I could draw draw it every yr because there’s no demand for the tag. The residents don’t want it either.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
That’s not how the law works. Reasonable minds can make opposing arguments about the proper application of the law, and if you end up on the wrong side of the decision, your good faith disagreement is irrelevant in most situations.
No law has 100% perfect drafting and much analysis goes into the “unsaid” boundaries of most laws. The issue here is that we still have neither clarifying statute or appellate case law. We will keep arguing about this until we do. Hence my wish for appellate action on a case like this.
Similar threads
