- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Appeals court rules corner crossing is not trespassing
Posted on 3/18/25 at 7:33 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 3/18/25 at 7:33 pm to Jim Rockford
Curious how the other western states will handle this now.
1
Posted on 3/18/25 at 7:50 pm to LSUbub12
quote:
Just curious why is the public and private land so checkerboarded to begin with?
I know that’s going off on a tangent but I’m curious
The government awarded alternating squares along railroad right of ways to railroad companies to encourage railroad construction. The companies in turn sold the squares at a profit.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 8:12 pm to TyOconner
quote:
Why wouldn’t a private land owner put up fence at the corners of their property? Then you cant corner cross without stepping onto the private property?
I think that is what they did. I believe I read where the hunters placed an a-frame ladder over the corner. The only reason they would have done that it seems to me if there was a fence there.
Definitely a screwed up deal but in my opinion you should be able to cross the corner in that manner. Would also be an interesting case if all four parcels were private land with two different land owners. You could make it really hard on your neighbor to access his second parcel with equipment without have to drive a hell of a long way out of the way. That would suck but legally you would have to abide by it.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 9:09 pm to Junky
I believe this ruling was for more than Wyoming.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:36 pm to 257WBY
I hope it applies to CO too. Lots of BLM land that private owners control access to.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 10:47 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:Servants quarters around here.
his 22,045-acre ranch.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:17 pm to Piebald Panther
quote:neat photo. you can see that the ladder is place on two public pieces of land
Piebald Panther
. I guess 20 foot high private fences at the corners are next. if it's a fence like this (A frame not touching private land), I agree with the court. the hunters are not stepping foot on private land.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:26 pm to Piebald Panther
quote:
hey use ladders if its fenced and if not there's corner markers where they just step over.
Then they fall off the ladder, hit the fence, hurt themselves, and the sue the landowner.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:54 pm to Jim Rockford
Wyoming land owners must be pissed.
I hate that corner crossing was trespassed by the old boy network.
I hate that corner crossing was trespassed by the old boy network.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:12 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:Do what?
I hate that corner crossing was trespassed by the old boy network.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:10 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Do what?
In most western states you can get fined or arrested by the county sheriff for corner crossing. It’s bs to the Nth degree but until now no one has been able to fight it.
Imagine the four corners area of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah and crossing diagonally from Utah to New Mexico. You can do so without touching Colorado or Arizona.
Now say Utah and New Mexico were public land areas but Colorado and Arizona were private land. All of the sudden going from public land to public land is illegal because private land is near by.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 2:17 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Gotcha.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:08 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
quote:
This is a massive decision if it stands up. It probably won't
3 judge panel on the appeals court unanimously agreed with the district court judge.
Good luck trying to get the Supreme Court to agree to hear a case where the appeals court judges who heard the case unanimously agreed with the lower court's original ruling. Doesn't seem to be any gray area or conflicting rulings that would warrant SCOTUS to agree to hear the case.
quote:
they are very aggressive about it because it was their intent when buying the private land to block access to thousands of acres of public land
Sounds like they made a bad investment then. Look at the unlawful enclosures act that the judges cited when ruling in favor of the hunters. Angry landowners don't have a leg to stand on. They can whine all the want, but only thing they can do now is try to catch a hunter who takes a step onto the private property instead of stepping clear over the corner from one public parcel to the next public parcel.
Some of the people who have intentionally bought up tracts of private land to landlock public land are not exactly what one would call civic minded. They are the kind of people who will graze public land and when the owner (the tax payers of the US) mentions they might ought to pay the small fee required they take over national wildlife refuges and get into armed confrontations with federal law enforcement officials. They will, for the most part, not pay a bit of attention to a court decision.....they are of the opinion that anyone who wishes to challenge THEM can come do so in the middle of a vast area where the nearest neighbor not only can't hear a gunshot if they did they are accustomed to hearing gunshots and share the opinion that the public ought not have access to public land that they have lived next to for generations. I have sat in a couple of landowner / law enforcement / hunter advocate group meetings in New Mexico. I have never met a more entitled and self centered group of people than these kinds of landowners...they simply do not give a frick that they own 100 acres and it blocks access to 10s of thousands of acres of public land...they do not care because it is the reason they own it in the first place. They are universally of the opinion that public land should not be accessible to the public even when it is easily accessible from public access points....they view it as THEIR property....and nothing is ever going to change their minds.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:22 pm to Piebald Panther
What these people are doing is, or was, in my understanding, trespassing.....at least in New Mexico....because they were entering the air space of the private land. I am dead serious...I have heard landowners and their attorneys use that very language in meetings where the landowners were pretty much informing law enforcement and hunting advocate groups and hunters that this type of activity would result in all but the law enforcement groups being shot on site. And they are not bullshitting. I know MANY people who have shot deer, antelope, cranes, ducks and geese which would fall dead on public land who were accosted by landowners when they LOOKED like they may be considering corner hopping to retrieve the animal. This is in very rural and isolated areas...the land owner had to have been watching them and waiting for them to look like they were considering it. It is not uncommon....almost everyone who hunts in New Mexico has had it happen. I have a good friend whose son shot a HUGE mule deer, his first, that ran about 100 yards and fell on public land....the boy was 15 years old and when he and his dad stopped where OnX indicated was the corner in question a shot rang out and a pair or trucks ran up on them, guns trained on them, and told them if they stepped any closer to the corner they were dead....this is a man and a 15 year old boy hunting public land. The landowner KNEW the deer was shot on public land and knew it had ran onto public land that was inaccessible in New Mexico. Any decent human being would have congratulated that man and that boy on that deer and either allowed them to retrieve it OR did it for them. Instead the landowner drove onto the inaccessible public land, loaded the deer, and told them it would be at his house if they were man enough to come get it. This is an extreme example but it is not at all unheard of...it is so common in New Mexico that every summer LEO and Hunting Advocate groups hold public meetings across the state to make certain everyone one involved is aware of what their rights are....and the landowners show up at these things, in my experience, and pretty much tell everyone that if they see what these people are doing they will shoot first and ask questions if anyone ever comes to claim the body.....
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:17 pm to AwgustaDawg
What about the opposite situation? Does the government have to grant an easement through public land to allow landowners to access their private land?
I don't know if anything like this exist there, but I've seen it on OnX in LA and MS where there is a road leading to a small parcel of private land within large area of public.
I don't know if anything like this exist there, but I've seen it on OnX in LA and MS where there is a road leading to a small parcel of private land within large area of public.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:18 pm to AwgustaDawg
Being a Louisiana/Mississippi hunter, I never knew this was such a big deal out west. These people sound like they still live in the wild wild west.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 7:15 pm to mylsuhat
quote:
This is a HUGE, and logical decision by the courts.
Land owners are going to be furious because they have been using and selling access to public land via their land for decades. It's been a crazy concept for way too long
We have thousands of acres of state land land locked.
We don't own corners, a group of maybe 30 land owners own the entire perimeter. Access is controlled.
Given no public point of ingress exists, I see no issue. The public has no intention of paying the maintenance of private roadways...so the public has no access.
quote:
they view it as THEIR property....and nothing is ever going to change their minds.
It isn't my property, though I do feel responsible for its maintenance and preservation. I would add that I have never once encountered a person on said property who had illegally crossed at least a few hundred feet of private property to get there...who wasn't also engaged in destructive or outright illegal activity.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 10:07 pm to yodaddyroberto
quote:
What about the opposite situation? Does the government have to grant an easement through public land to allow landowners to access their private land?
It’s public, therefore open to the public.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 10:40 pm to evil cockroach
quote:
I guess 20 foot high private fences at the corners are next.
I mean, what would stop this? Only would need two sections of fence 10ft long and how ever high needed? They wouldn't even need to touch at the corner--just be less than a person could squeeze through.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 5:20 am to yodaddyroberto
quote:
What about the opposite situation? Does the government have to grant an easement through public land to allow landowners to access their private land?
I don't know if anything like this exist there, but I've seen it on OnX in LA and MS where there is a road leading to a small parcel of private land within large area of public.
Its already public land so the landowner has the same right to access as everyone else.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News