'Corner Crossing' at checkerboard Fed/Private survey corners may be a protected right - or not

[Slowpoke Slim]

Is this the same land owner?

Hasn't this already been decided?

?

 

[dodge man]

One thing to keep in mind a boundary line has no width and a boundary corner has no dimension, they are infinitely small. I get why the guy thinks people are trespassing, in theory they are.

There is a legal principal, which of course I can’t think of the actual term, that maybe you have the law on your side but the damage to you is so minimal and the damage to the other party is so great, you lose. That kind of seems to be the case here.

 

[California]

There is a legal principle...

And more specifically, that link I put above to a lawyer's discussion of the federal Unlawful Enclosures Act of 1885 is relevant here. iIt says the Act guarantees that access to public land shall not be prevented by private owners when (only when) the only usable route to that public land is through the private property. Not a fundamental principle, but an explicit law enacted to keep public lands accessible.

The Act of 1885 seems to apply in this case, and more generally, is written to say if a cliff, river, factory, something blocks what would be the only access, then the public has a right to cross the private land in the manner that least harms the private landowner.

 

[Jstpssng]

Pole vault?

Helipad to fly in and out?

Tunnel???

Tunnel would cross his land. What some are doing is carrying ladders in so that they can cross the corners without touching his land. They are dedicated hunters… imagine packing an elk out over a ladder.

 

[Torvy]

He should be careful with his insistence. If they wanted, the state could 'take' the corners and then that issue goes away. I'm a big proponent of private property rights and would hate to see that. Unless the hunters are damaging his property/fences, he is making a mountain out of a molehill. Most reports seem to be that hunters have been careful not to infringe.

 

[California]

He should be careful with his insistence. ...he is making a mountain out of a molehill.

The videos that Slowpoke Slim linked, above, add an attorney's interpretation to the WyoFile original reports of the issue. But that Eastern attorney doesn't seem to recognize the westerner's perspective that dominates the comments on YouTube below the video, and I think this is the essence of the issue:

This landowner, who is said to use lawsuits generously in his Wyoming real estate ventures, names $7m as his damages because feels the value of his 28,000 acre hunting preserve is diminished by losing his exclusive right to control access into the 6,000 acres of public land within his outer perimeter. So now he can only claim he controls 22,000 acres, and this diminishes what he thought was the overall value of his ranch.

His is a nonsense assertion. He never owned the 6,000 acres so he has lost nothing by the court re-affirming the public's right to use the public land.

 

[Snobdds]

Everyone in Wyoming that owns land was watching this case. From my perspective, most did not want him to prevail. If he did, the fences all across the state would need to be surveyed to see just exactly where they were to prevent litigation. Guys that put in fence lines, don't necessarily go right down a property line. I think it's reasonable to have a little wiggle room in property boundaries out in the middle of nowhere.

In general everyone thought it was a little silly suing these guys for trespassing.

A fool and his foolish money are easily departed...

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

The videos that Sowpoke Slim linked, above, add an attorney's interpretation to the WyoFile original reports of the issue. But that Eastern attorney doesn't seem to recognize the westerner's perspective that dominates the comments on YouTube below the video, and I think this is the essence of the issue:

This landowner, who is said to use lawsuits generously in his Wyoming real estate ventures, names $7m as his damages because feels the value of his 28,000 acre hunting preserve is diminished by losing his exclusive right to control access into the 6,000 acres of public land within his outer perimeter. So now he can only claim he controls 22,000 acres, and this diminishes what he thought was the overall value of his ranch.

His is a nonsense assertion. He never owned the 6,000 acres so he has lost nothing by the court re-affirming the public's right to use the public land.

Whether the lawyer is an "easterner" or not is completely irrelevant.

1. The landowner LOST in federal court.

2. The landowner DROPPED his claim.

Nothing left to talk about.