Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[rogerthat]

IMO, good to have two circuits involved. If they both rule the way we want it pretty much covers the hunting west even if SCOTUS passes and it gives the other circuits food for thought. If they split it gives SCOTUS more reason to pick it up. At the same time, this is costly and risky business for those who poke the bear to get a reaction.

Costly but worth it. I’m surprised there isn’t a case in Montana. I know a lot of sportsman doing it already

 

[VikingsGuy]

Costly but worth it. I’m surprised there isn’t a case in Montana. I know a lot of sportsman doing it already

Can be tricky to pull off as you need a "willing" land owner and county attorney to push it and stick with it as proper foils. The WY case had that. Advocates would have to find another such pair in MT. Preferably you could find a land owner who wanted to go right to federal court for civil trespass.

 

[BrentD]

Can be tricky to pull off as you need a "willing" land owner and county attorney to push it and stick with it as proper foils. The WY case had that. Advocates would have to find another such pair in MT. Preferably you could find a land owner who wanted to go right to federal court for civil trespass.

Is there no way to petition the courts for a consideration without actually having someone to prosecute persecute? The decision needs to be broader than just one particular incident with all it's attending peculiarities.

 

[jakenbake]

Is there no way to petition the courts for a consideration without actually having someone to prosecute persecute? The decision needs to be broader than just one particular incident with all it's attending peculiarities.

You cannot petition a court for a judicial interpretation of a law, no. You need an actual conflict.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You cannot petition a court for a judicial interpretation of a law, no. You need an actual conflict.

Yup - needs to be an actual case/controversy between two parties. I suppose on the federal civil side sufficient threats of suit can create support for declaratory judgement action, but that would take more than idle threats by ranch hands I would guess.

Maybe find a landowner who blocked corners and walk around the “blockage” and then sue the landowner under the UIA and hope they counterclaimed trespass.

Or find a semi-friendly landowner who is willing to push for clarity.

Lots of ways to manufacture a suit if one wanted to.

 

[Scott85]

@VikingsGuy thanks for taking time to explain legalese to all us dummies.

 

[BrentD]

So, how long until corner markers are declared as endangered species and listed?

In the checkerboard country, I bet a lot of crowbars are at work this morning. I'd love to have a few covered by hidden video cameras.

 

[antlerradar]

But the court was careful and purposeful in the ruling - this is not a free pass through all corners for any reason and any manner. If there was another less convenient route it is unlikely this court would have allowed it. If the hunters had done damage to the private land this court would have found the other way. Under this ruling, folks need to be careful in finding the actual corners and step over with some care. I don't think just blundering through "close enough" gets it done as this is a judge-made exception to private property rights and I imagine they will keep the exception slim.

Could the landowner on appeal claim that the court over looked the fly in option as a way to still access the BLM without violating his air space.

 

[rogerthat]

So, how long until corner markers are declared as endangered species and listed?

In the checkerboard country, I bet a lot of crowbars are at work this morning. I'd love to have a few covered by hidden video cameras.

Hopefully the NGO’s that purport they are for access are firing up their survey team schemes as we speak. Lots of checkerboard out there that could use a new shiny pin. Hell they could even provide the ladder as part of the project

 

[VikingsGuy]

Could the landowner on appeal claim that the court over looked the fly in option as a way to still access the BLM without violating his air space.

The court did mention fly in I recall (not at my desk so can’t look up) but in passing. I don’t think the 10th circ would rely on helicopters hopping amongst dozens of checkerboard spot as reasonable access. Way easier for them to say then 8th circ ruling not binding on 10th circ now and the Leo governing law.

 

[BoulderBulls]

Maybe it's been shared. Does someone know of a list out there of public acres of corners in the central and Eastern time zone if any. Be interesting

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe it's been shared. Does someone know of a list out there of public acres of corners in the central and Eastern time zone if any. Be interesting

You could try asking OnX or GoHunt folks.

 

[Sytes]

Curious: Does this not constitute grounds for Defendants to recover expenses to defend themselves? The Judge ruled the Plaintiff's violation of the UIA - "...forced Defendants to grab the steel posts...". I know recouping $ lost for the defense is typically a long shot though in this case it appears the Plaintiff caused this to occur. @VikingsGuy or others in the know?





Found this to be a fitting determining factor, be it established by then 8th Circuit - pre 10th Circuit existence:





Curious about the portion below... I'm not sure of the Statute of Limitations though was the "Plaintiff's employee" cited for use of, "motorized vehicles on public parcels... in an effort to scare away the game"?

Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-3-306​

(a) No person shall harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, or kill any Wyoming wildlife except predatory animals with, from, or by use of any aircraft, automotive vehicle, trailer, motor-propelled wheeled vehicle, or vehicle designed for travel over snow.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Curious: Does this not constitute grounds for Defendants to recover expenses to defend themselves? The Judge ruled the Plaintiff's violation of the UIA - "...forced Defendants to grab the steel posts...". I know recouping $ lost for the defense is typically a long shot though in this case it appears the Plaintiff caused this to occur. @VikingsGuy or others in the know?

View attachment 277570



Found this to be a fitting determining factor, be it established by then 8th Circuit - pre 10th Circuit existence:

View attachment 277569



Curious about the portion below... I'm not sure of the Statute of Limitations though was the "Plaintiff's employee" cited for use of, "motorized vehicles on public parcels... in an effort to scare away the game"?

Title 23. Game and Fish § 23-3-306​

(a) No person shall harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, or kill any Wyoming wildlife except predatory animals with, from, or by use of any aircraft, automotive vehicle, trailer, motor-propelled wheeled vehicle, or vehicle designed for travel over snow.


View attachment 277561

Unless there is a fee recovery provision in the relevant statute (and I doubt this would be in the very old UIA), or egregious bad faith conduct in the court proceeding, each side bears their own costs in US litigation.,

As for claims by the defendants, the BLM or charges by sheriff or G&F under UIA and other provisions seem to be interesting options, but I assume the team has already looked at these and likely would expect very little support from local govt folks and may be choosing to take the win and ramp down the legal exchanges, but maybe @JM77 might have some insight into their thinking about counter claims.

 

[BuzzH]

Seems like the Wyoming GF better be issuing a couple hunter harassment tickets...

 

[TOGIE]

Seems like the Wyoming GF better be issuing a couple hunter harassment tickets...

Didn’t they technically issue them? And the DA didn’t do anything about it?

Or did the warden just recommend hunter harassment charges at the time and the DA ignored it?

 

[BuzzH]

Didn’t they technically issue them? And the DA didn’t do anything about it?

Or did the warden just recommend hunter harassment charges at the time and the DA ignored it?

Nope, they didn't issue them for lack of proof, (video). The hunters filed complaints but without enough proof the warden wouldn't ticket them. I think the deposition and sworn testimony is all the proof they now need.

We'll see Tuesday...

 

[rogerthat]

That would be fantastic and nice cherry on top. Hopefully Eshelman sells out for a gigantic loss now that his ranch has been devalued. Sarcasm font

 

[BuzzH]

That would be fantastic and nice cherry on top. Hopefully Eshelman sells out for a gigantic loss now that his ranch has been devalued. Sarcasm font

I'm still waiting for James Rinehart to drop the listing prices by millions he said would happen if this case went this way.

I bet he hasn't lowered listing prices a thin dimes worth.

 

[JM77]

Unless there is a fee recovery provision in the relevant statute (and I doubt this would be in the very old UIA), or egregious bad faith conduct in the court proceeding, each side bears their own costs in US litigation.,

As for claims by the defendants, the BLM or charges by sheriff or G&F under UIA and other provisions seem to be interesting options, but I assume the team has already looked at these and likely would expect very little support from local govt folks and may be choosing to take the win and ramp down the legal exchanges, but maybe @JM77 might have some insight into their thinking about counter claims.

I haven't spoke with the hunter I keep in contact with since the judgement. Of course we had a small celebration with texts when we got the news.

The game warden originally sent the report to the county attorney on the hunter harassment charges. As @BuzzH mentioned the G&F didn't feel they had enough evidence outside of eye witness testimony to write the citations. Obviously the county attorney was working for Eshelman and she wouldn't file those charges either. I think G&F should revisit this, but I'm not holding my breath. The Department, under the current leadership, is a whole different animal than these days.