Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[Hunter4Life78]

I was thinking of starting a drone lift service. Text me from your public land corner of choice and the drone comes to you, lifts you straight up as high as is required for legal crossing, moves forward 2 feet, and sets you down on the adjoining public corner.

And then (at least in MT you wait 24 hours because you just "flew in". C'mon you know it would happen

 

[Sytes]

The "24hr regulation has changed for Wyoming. However, note: "for scouting"... @COEngineer 's comment is not engaged in "scouting". Unless you want to argue it aids in taking game animals though my two coppers say that is a weak sauce contention. People would not be able to fly to Wyoming to hunt...

Off topic though regarding the earlier 24hr scouting via flying (pre 2016).

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is reminding hunters that it is illegal to use aircraft to do their scouting or aid in taking game animals from August 1-January 31. Previously, hunters were only required to wait for a 24-hour period before hunting game animals that had been located with an aircraft.

Game and Fish: New rules on scouting for game animals with aircraft | Wyoming Game & Fish Department

With the evenings getting cooler in Wyoming, many hunters are turning their attention to scouting for the fall hunting seasons. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is reminding hunters that it is illegal to use aircraft to do their scouting or aid in taking game animals from August 1-January 31.

wgfd.wyo.gov

 

[Hunter4Life78]

The "24hr regulation has changed for Wyoming. However, note: "for scouting"... @COEngineer 's comment is not engaged in "scouting". Unless you want to argue it aids in taking game animals though my two coppers say that is a weak sauce contention. People would not be able to fly to Wyoming to hunt...

Off topic though regarding the earlier 24hr scouting via flying (pre 2016).

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is reminding hunters that it is illegal to use aircraft to do their scouting or aid in taking game animals from August 1-January 31. Previously, hunters were only required to wait for a 24-hour period before hunting game animals that had been located with an aircraft.

Game and Fish: New rules on scouting for game animals with aircraft | Wyoming Game & Fish Department

With the evenings getting cooler in Wyoming, many hunters are turning their attention to scouting for the fall hunting seasons. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is reminding hunters that it is illegal to use aircraft to do their scouting or aid in taking game animals from August 1-January 31.

wgfd.wyo.gov

Copy that. Sarcasm is tough to get across via the usage of text It's "same day" for MT not 24 hours if memory serves correctly. Not that I have to worry about it, the odds of me flying in anywhere is highly unlikely.

So glad these folks won. I almost did it years ago after watching others do it. Didn't know if it was legal and chose to play it safe.

 

[Eric Albus]

If corner hopping is proven legal it will permanently change land values.
If it’s proven legal the public will only access those parcels for about 2 weeks, after 2 weeks it will be devoid of wildlife and quality.

 

[Deleted member 40728]

If corner hopping is proven legal it will permanently change land values.
If it’s proven legal the public will only access those parcels for about 2 weeks, after 2 weeks it will be devoid of wildlife and quality.

At least the public will be able to access “their” public lands.

The land values should have never been changed in the first place based on a private owner land locking public land. If they purchased that property for a astronomical value thinking there was no possibility of anything ever changing then that is on them. I personally don’t see how it devalues their personal property. They still own the same acreage as before.
I’ve never heard of an appraiser including public property into a value of a home. If so I need a new bank, I want my neighbors place included in the value of mine.

 

[BrentD]

I’ve never heard of an appraiser including public property into a value of a home. If so I need a new bank, I want my neighbors place included in the value of mine.

If my property borders on Lake Superior, or a national park or forest, or pig confinement, neighboring property very definitely affects value. But since no new laws were added here, the public property is the same as it always was and the private owner's exclusivity to it has not changed at all. The land was previously overvalued (as in it was not worth what they thought it was), it has not been devalued at all.

Maybe the landowner should sue Wyoming for excessive taxation and demand return of back taxes. That would be more rational. Good luck with that...

 

[seeth07]

If my property borders on Lake Superior, or a national park or forest, or pig confinement, neighboring property very definitely affects value. But since no new laws were added here, the public property is the same as it always was and the private owner's exclusivity to it has not changed at all.

Your first sentence is dead on correct. What you say next while I do agree that its the same in terms of what is public and what is private, there certainly is a change. There was certain risks a person would be taking by corner crossing in Carbon county at the time of the events and although the criminal charges didn't stick, there still exists risk to do it right now. Those risks are going to deter people from doing it. I drove by the elk mountain ranch on my way home from Wyoming earlier this week and there were zero cars/trucks parked along the road where a person could corner cross. Even with the clients winning the case, there were zero people hunting on Elk mountain, in the peak of the rut, by corner crossing. So in a sense, the "landlocked" public right now I believe does increase the value of the property.

As public land advocates we actually want the Elk Mountain ranch to win its damages claim. By a judge agreeing and ordering damages associated with the property value decrease, that means the the Judge is ruling that its legal for the public to corner cross and therefore ends the gray area of whether or not its legal to cross those corners and not constitute a trespass.

 

[Addicting]

As public land advocates we actually want the Elk Mountain ranch to win its damages claim. By a judge agreeing and ordering damages associated with the property value decrease, that means the the Judge is ruling that its legal for the public to corner cross and therefore ends the gray area of whether or not its legal to cross those corners and not constitute a trespass.

????
Pretty sure that is not correct.

 

[seeth07]

????
Pretty sure that is not correct.

Sure it is. In order to rule that the property lost value, you have to admit that the public land in that area is accessible.

 

[seeth07]

The argument then just lies on whether or not this particular incident resulted in this happening. That part is hogwash. It was always open and the realtor sold them lies about all this "free land" they were getting resulting in a super high property value or it was never open and remains not open.

 

[Addicting]

Sure it is. In order to rule that the property lost value, you have to admit that the public land in that area is accessible.

Nope, he doesn’t need any of that. He simply needs to loose the case. It wasn’t illegal and there are no damages. His perception of lost value is exactly that, his perception. It’s inflated value that he never actually had.

In no way shape or form should he win this case and the hunters have to pay damages.

 

[seeth07]

In no way shape or form should he win this case and the hunters have to pay damages.

We are agreeing on this same item and you just are simply missing my point...

 

[Gerald Martin]

I bought a property advertising majestic Mountain View’s.

My neighbors have built houses that are an impediment to the views advertised on the brochure and have taken that value from me.

How much damage can I sue them for? The brochure claimed “ Ten million dollar views.”*

* not an actual statement

 

[Addicting]

We are agreeing on this same item and you just are simply missing my point...

Not missing your point, you stated you want elk mountain to win. If he wins the hunters pay damages and corner crossing is civilly liable for damages from then on out.

That is the exact opposite of what a public lands advocate should want.

 

[seeth07]

Not missing your point, you stated you want elk mountain to win. If he wins the hunters pay damages and corner crossing is civilly liable for damages from then on out.

That is the exact opposite of what a public lands advocate should want.

Where did I say I wanted elk mountain "to win" this case. I stated we want them to win their CLAIM that property value DECREASED

 

[Addicting]

@seeth07

Elk mountain wins. Hunters pay damages of what he says was a loss.

Every hunter who corner crosses now has to pay whatever the land owner claims as a loss of property value.

This would be a huge win in big land owners favor. Buy a property for way over value. Wait for some poor hunter to stick his arm across the line and sue him for all he is worth. Each new air space violation is a new suit. It is going to be the absolute best way for them to make money on their property. Who cares what it is actually worth.

Where did I say I wanted elk mountain "to win" this case. I stated we want them to win their CLAIM that property value DECREASED

It one in the same. You can only win or loose a verdict.

 

[seeth07]

@seeth07

Elk mountain wins. Hunters pay damages of what he says was a loss.

Every hunter who corner crosses now has to pay whatever the land owner claims as a loss of property value.

This would be a huge win in big land owners favor. Buy a property for way over value. Wait for some poor hunter to stick his arm across the line and sue him for all he is worth. Each new air space violation is a new suit. It is going to be the absolute best way for them to make money on their property. Who cares what it is actually worth.

It one in the same. You can only win or loose a verdict.

I don't see it that way. Why can't the judge rule that the damages did occur but it wasn't the fault of the hunters because it was legal and always was legal?

 

[Addicting]

I don't see it that way. Why can't the judge rule that the damages did occur but it wasn't the fault of the hunters because it was legal and always was legal?

Because that is not how the court system works. He either wins and is awarded damages, or looses because it wasn’t illegal and there were no damages.

Even a damage of a dollar is a huge loss to public access.

 

[seeth07]

What's interesting to me about the alleged damages ($3-7MM for diminution in value because of the trespass) is that there's a pretty solid legal defense to that. Either there was no trespass, in which case, there's no liability; or there was a trespass (airspace), in which case, there's been no diminution in value because it was a recognized as a trespass, ie, other people can't do it. What the Ranch is really arguing is that the value has decreased because other people now know it's legal to access the public land this way--and that's hogwash. If it's legal, then it's ALWAYS been legal, and there's no diminution claim; if it's illegal, then the ranch's rights have not changed, and the property is worth just as much today as it was yesterday because everyone will know they can't do this (and I would argue it's actually worth more if the Ranch wins because prior to this, it was an "open question" whether this was legal).

@Addicting reread this post. Explained a little bit better. I just don't see a ruling in this case that would hurt the public land user other than a verdict that states ZERO damages (hunters win). The reason why is because if no damages occurred and the hunters win the case, the ruling doesn't tell us about the legality of the issue at hand. Its still an open question.

 

[seeth07]

Because that is not how the court system works. He either wins and is awarded damages, or looses because it wasn’t illegal and there were no damages.

Even a damage of a dollar is a huge loss to public access.

A dollar awarded would be laughable and fantastic. Corner cross at the risk of causing 1 dollar in damages due to your intrusion of the airspace? Ok fine, I'll pay that all day...