by I learned a new term this week. It is “corner-crossing hunters”. It does not involve hunters waiting for the light to change so they can cross the street when the light changes. Rather, it seems to be a distinctly Western US issue whereby hunters cross from one piece of public land to another piece of public land at the adjoining corners.
Look at the checkerboard pictured below. Now imagine all the red spaces are public land and all the black spaces are private land. As a historical result of how the United States granted lands out West to the railroads to encourage their development of the trans-continental railroads, much of the land ownership looks exactly like this. It is not a trivial amount of land as the government granted property in a 40 mile wide swath along the railroad. The result is that if you wish to avoid trespassing on private land you must do so at the corners. While this seems simple to me as a born and bred Easterner, things are never as they seem.
The issue of corner-crossing was brought to a head as a result of a lawsuit seeking $7 million in damages brought by Iron Bar Holdings LLC (aka Elk Mountain Ranch) against four hunters from Missouri. The hunters had hunted public land in 2020 and 2021 adjoining the Carbon County, Wyoming ranch. They had crossed at the corners. The owner of the ranch had argued the hunters trespassed by invading the airspace above his property. He filed complaints for criminal trespass against the hunters with the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish as well as the local sheriff. After their 2021 hunt, the local prosecutor did bring charges but all four hunters were acquitted in a jury trial of criminal trespass.
In 2022, the rancher filed a civil complaint in Wyoming state court that was moved to Federal court. The rancher was seeking as noted above $7 million in damages. Thanks to a fundraising campaign by Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the four hunters – Zach Smith, Bradley Cape, Phillip Yeomans, and John Slowensky – were represented in court. The group also filed an amicus brief with the court.
On May 26th, Chief US District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl granted the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants for most of the claims against them. All that remained was whether or not a marked waypoint on the OnX hunting app indicated one of the hunters had trespassed. That was later dismissed as the plaintiff withdrew its last remaining claim.
From WyoFile.com:
Skavdahl observed that with respect to the corner crossing issue “[t]here is no evidence the hunters made physical contact with [Eshelman’s] private land or caused any damage to plaintiff’s private property,” either in 2020 or 2021. The judge also agreed with Eshelman that he generally owns the airspace above his property and is entitled to use it.
But even property rights come with limitations and restrictions, Skavdahl wrote.
“History, federal case law, federal statutory law, and recent Wyoming legislation demonstrate corner crossing in the manner done by Defendants in this case is just such a restriction on Plaintiff’s property rights,” he wrote. “[D]efendants, ‘in common with other persons [have] the right to the benefit of the public domain,’ which necessarily requires some limitation on the adjoining private landowner’s right of exclusion within the checkerboard pattern of land ownership.”
One of the prevailing cases that assisted Judge Skavdahl in his ruling dated back to 1914 and involved a sheepherder moving his sheep from one piece of public land to another. Obviously, a flock of sheep take up more of the “airspace” above private property than does a hunter jumping or swing across at the corner. That ruling recognized the “exceptional conditions” created by the checkerboard of land ownership and that provision must be made to allow one to cross from one piece of public land to another. The judge went back even further to the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 and found the rancher blocking one corner using steel posts and locked chains violated that act (see photo below).
It should be noted that the hunters went over and beyond in 2021 to avoid trespass. In the photo below taken from a court exhibit, the hunters used a self-made steel ladder to enable them to step across at the corners. This was especially true of the one corner that the rancher had created an impediment.
I strongly believe in private property rights. However, in this case I do think that Judge Skavdahl got it right considering the checkerboard nature of many of these public landholdings.
H/T Ben Cassidy at SCI
I seem to recall celebrities trying to stop the public from accessing the ocean out west because they owned land next to the beach, in a similar case. The celebrity and other wealthy property owners lost, with the judge basically telling them off.
If course, with my memory and she together, I might have just dreamed the whole thing and thought it was real, since I don’t remember my dreams.
Nope, you are right Pigpen. The beaches are state owned and California law says that the public must be allowed access. Some owners have gone as far as to build nice access easements. The problems arose when the public then abused those easements by leaving trash, destroying private property, etc. Some owners then tried to block the easements and lost in court. As usual, there are always two sides.
My sympathy is with the hunters. What you have here is a wealthy out-of-state (North Carolina) landowner attempting to deny access to public land. There are those in this country who want to replicate the hunting regime of Europe and this guy is one of them. He is not really a rancher as he owns the property for commercial recreational purposes.
“Eshelman bought the Elk Mountain Ranch in 2005 under the belief that he could control access to all the public land it enmeshed.” (From the same source you used.) He did so by physically obstructing the corners and instructing his employees to confront corner crossers. Probably lucky that the situation didn’t escalate.
I had never heard of Eshelman until now even though he gave a $100 million to UNC. Turns out he made his money in the pharmaceutical biz and then sold the company.
I’d love to say he didn’t grow up in North Carolina but I can’t. I see he grew up in High Point which is located in the same county in which I grew up.
The only thing that surprises me is that he didn’t try to buy a few local politicians with all his money including the sheriff.
https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-landowner-gave-millions-to-conservatives-conservation/
It sounds like he did buy the local DA who overruled LE decision not to charge the hunters.
There is a long tradition of this in the west. Just read almost every Louis L’Amour western and/or the history of range wars. Someone bought or settled on the only water in the area, giving them de facto control of the range. When others tried to move in and settle on the technically unowned land, they were run off by the rancher who was used to (and needed) the thousands of acres on which to run his cattle.
Sounds like the proverbial rich vs. poor conflict! I am rich, you WILL obey my authoritah!!! Not!!!
I thought the checkerboard distribution as only along the railroad frontage. I’ve learned something new! But, Since the hunters did not damage any private property, I think the judge was right.
And why do I have this mental image of the Rykers trying to run Joe Starrett and the other homesteaders off their land in Shane reading about this case?
My grandfather owned a large tract of land right outside the city limits of Marion, IN. When the city expanded the borders and his land was all the sudden within city limits, they didn’t technically make him give up any land, but he was required to put allow “alleys” to provide an easement through his property at certain distances. The easements weren’t graveled or paved, he was just required to keep them clear of obstructions (no fences, no buildings, no trees or bushes), ostensibly so emergency services could get through if needed, but public passage was allowed as well.
I’d think that there would be a way to do something like that at these corners…an “easement” of, say , five or ten feet to either side of the corner allowing public access and that must stay free of obstructions, but can otherwise be used by the landowner.
Has no one ever thought to propose such a solution?
This landowner bought the property with the goal of excluding citizens from the public lands. So your solution would only work if the easement were forced.
That’s what I’m talking about; however “easement” may not be the proper term for something that’s forced. I’m no lawyer. My grandfather sure didn’t want to allow public passage through his land, but he was forced by the city to do so.
Luckily not much of the public took advantage of this public passage, but the fact that he was required to allow it stuck in his craw until the day he died…maybe even after that.