The corner crossing case involves four hunters who claim to have stepped chess-bishop fashion from one piece of public land to another where the public parcels (represented by white squares in this photo) share a four-way corner with two private parcels (black squares) without touching private land. The hunters have been charged with criminal trespass and now face a civil suit brought by an apparently wealthy landowner. (Eddie Wong/FlickrCC)

RAWLINS — Four bowhunters who pleaded not guilty to criminal trespass in a corner-crossing case in Carbon County are facing a new civil lawsuit and a potential new criminal charge, court files show.

The owner of Elk Mountain Ranch filed a civil suit asking the Carbon County District Court to declare that the four men “committed a civil trespass” by corner crossing. Iron Bar Holdings, the limited liability company that holds the roughly 20,000-acre property around Elk Mountain, seeks repayment “to the fullest extent of the law,” for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the litigation, the civil suit states.

Meantime, a prosecutor has asked the lower Carbon County Circuit Court to add an alternative criminal charge — trespassing to hunt — to the existing criminal trespass citation against the men, according to a Feb. 10 motion. The men entered or remained on Fred Eshelman’s property “to hunt without the permission of the owner…” the motion states.

The circuit court has set an April 14 date for a trial on the criminal trespass charge or charges, court documents indicate. At issue is whether the men trespassed even though they used a fence ladder to avoid setting foot on private property.

“Such an interpretation would mean that a hiker running from a mountain lion, who swings their flailing arms over a private property line, has committed criminal trespass.”

Hunters’ motion to dismiss

Corner crossing involves stepping from one piece of public land to another where the public parcels share a four-way corner with two private parcels. Where such ownership patterns exist, it is possible to step over the common corner, chess-bishop fashion, without touching private land.

Owning airspace

The Carbon County attorney’s office identified “Fred” Eshelman as the owner of Elk Mountain Ranch. Fredric N. Eshelman is the manager of Iron Bar Holdings LLC, a New Hanover County, North Carolina, company, according to a 2005 filing with the Wyoming Secretary of State’s office.

Iron Bar Holdings appears as an owner of Elk Mountain Ranch in Carbon County property and tax records. Eshelman “founded and served as CEO and Executive Chairman of Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPDI, NASDAQ) prior to the sale of the company to private equity interests,” a web page for Eshelman Ventures states.

Fredric N. Eshelman is the manager of Iron Bar Holdings LLC, a New Hanover County, North Carolina, company, according to a 2005 filing with the Wyoming Secretary of State’s office. A web page for Eshelman Ventures displays the above photo of Eshelman and states that he served as CEO and Executive Chairman of Pharmaceutical Product Development before the company was sold to private equity interests. (Eshelman Ventures/Screenshot)

The new civil suit Iron Bar Holdings filed against the bowhunters in Carbon County District Court states that Elk Mountain Ranch “has a right to exclusive control, use, and enjoyment of its Property, which includes the airspace at the corner, above the Property … the surface of the land and the subsurface below it.

“The court should declare the men trespassers,” the complaint says, and should order a trial — but only to determine damages. If the district court declares that the men trespassed, a trial would allow Iron Bar Holdings to prove damages and seek repayment for its expenses and “other just and appropriate relief.”

The civil suit also seeks injunction to bar the men from corner crossing. “Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damage for the loss of the use, custody, possession and control of the Property as long as Defendants continue…” the district court action states.

“The Defendants are actively carrying out a campaign to solicit funds to defend their improper and unlawful actions, and … may intend to encourage other persons to carry out unlawful ‘corner crossings’ on Plaintiff’s Property,” the suit states.

Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers launched a GoFundMe campaign to help finance the court action to settle what many argue is a gray area in property trespass laws. The funds would allow the men their opportunity to due process regardless of their individual financial resources, the hunters’ group has said.

To carry out corner crossing, “the person must physically travel across the privately-owned [sic] real property,” Iron Bar Holdings alleges in its civil suit. Iron Bar owns and controls the airspace above its real property, “even if Defendants did not step onto the surface of the Property.

“Adjudication by the Court of the dispute, case, and controversy will resolve any legal questions as to the ownership, possession, and control of the airspace above Plaintiff’s Property…” the suit states.

Fresh charge

At stake is access to 404,000 public acres in Wyoming considered “landlocked” — blocked off by adjacent private property — under any convention that sees corner crossing as illegal. A decision could impact almost 1.6 million acres of public land when also counting Utah, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and New Mexico, according to an assessment by the Center for Western Priorities.

Authorities cited Missouri bowhunters Phillip G. Yeomans, Bradly [also spelled Bradley in some documents] H. Cape, John W. Slowensky and Zachary M. Smith with criminal trespass on Oct. 4, 2021. Under that law, a person is guilty of criminal trespass “if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass…”

The fence ladder used by hunters in the corner-crossing case. (Wyoming Game and Fish)

The additional or alternative hunting trespass charge the deputy county attorney seeks to bring against the bowhunters may not apply to corner crossing, according to a Wyoming attorney general’s opinion from 2004. That opinion states that corner crossing requires a person “to hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission.” 

The deputy county attorney is apparently challenging that opinion. 

The bowhunters claim they hunted only on public land. Their attorneys have asked that the charges be dismissed and recently filed a second dismissal motion and argument.

Some of the wrangling centers on the definition of “enter” in the criminal trespass law, which could be a critical element in the cases.

“It is undisputed that neither Mr. Smith, nor any of the Defendants, ever physically made contact with the private land in question,” the second dismissal motion states. Thus, “[i]t is undisputed that Mr. Smith and his co-defendants did not enter the property in question.”

Laws allow boaters to traverse navigable waters across private property and low-level flight that does not “interfere with the existing use” of the private land, according to the dismissal motion. The filing also claims that “an illegally placed chain” between two fence posts crossed one four-corner point where the bowhunters used their ladder.

Given those circumstances, plus case law and the statutes themselves, a hunter could even strap an unworkable drone on his or her back and legally cross a corner, the motion states. The bowhunters’ attorneys suggest that any reading of trespass laws that allow such an interpretation — a reading proposed by those charging the bowhunters — is absurd, should be rejected and disqualified as the basis of charges.

“A reality where this is actually the case is an absurd reality, and an interpretation of law that creates absurd results,” the motion states. “Such an interpretation would mean that a hiker running from a mountain lion, who swings their flailing arms over a private property line, has committed criminal trespass.”

The hunters’ attorneys asked for a subpoena to obtain grazing permits and special use permits issued by the BLM for public land associated with the dispute. The hunters allege the Elk Mountain Ranch Manager Steve Grende illegally harassed them while they were hunting on public land.

A grazing permit generally “does not allow the permit holder to restrict ‘ingress or egress over the public lands … for all proper and lawful purposes,’” the request for a subpoena states.

A special use permit, the type of authorization allowing the guiding and outfitting of paying hunters, “does not create an exclusive right” and usually states that a permittee “shall not interfere with other valid uses of the federal land by other users,” the request for subpoena states.

The permits are public documents under the Freedom of Information Act but the BLM would likely not produce them by the trial date through only a FOIA records request, attorneys state.

Hunter harassment itself is illegal in Wyoming and aggrieved parties can file a civil suit. “Actual damages recoverable may include, but are not limited to expenditures for licenses, travel, outfitters and guides and special equipment and supplies to the extent the expenditures are rendered futile by the person’s conduct in violation of this section,” the law states.“If the trier of fact finds that the unlawful conduct was malicious, it may award punitive damage to the injured party,” the statute reads.

Angus M. Thuermer Jr. is the natural resources reporter for WyoFile. He is a veteran Wyoming reporter and editor with more than 35 years experience in Wyoming. Contact him at or (307)...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I side with the bow hunters. I cannot understand how land ownership equates to owning the air space above the land. How does one determine how much air space they own? Is it ten feet , 5 miles or one thousand miles? I hope the judge or jury finds for the bow hunters and awards public access to the land I own and you own.

    1. The airspace is defined as “ to the right of flight “ meaning to the point of navigable flight by aircraft.

  2. “The new civil suit Iron Bar Holdings filed against the bowhunters in Carbon County District Court states that Elk Mountain Ranch “has a right to exclusive control, use, and enjoyment of its Property, which includes the airspace at the corner, above the Property … the surface of the land and the subsurface below it.” So according to this statement the land owners now own the minerals under foot and the air over head. Ok, the Mining and Air Carrier industries need to get involved now. This will surely kill all of their businesses if this interpretation of the law is accepted.

  3. To all the Wyoming residents complaining about local politicians and low level government minions favoring out of state billionaires: You’ve no one to blame but yourselves.

    The GOP is the party of the rich. Period.

    Like most politicians, they will say whatever they need to say to win election. But most of the Wyoming legislature are wealthy. Most of their campaigns are financed by wealthy donors including many donors from out of state.

    Understanding the Legislature’s priorities is almost always just a matter of following the money – forget what they SAY and focus on what they DO.

    If you want a government that actually works for the Middle Class working people of the state, vote Democrat.

    If you won’t do that, then at least stop complaining – you deserve the government you vote for.

  4. Solution for this problem. In such cases where public lands abut at a corner junction in checker board delineated fashions the affected private property lines shall surrender easement space to alow free and unfettered passage from one public parcel to another public parcel when they abut or are very near proximity. Just like an eminent domain takings by local or state government for a roadway expansion, bus turnout lanes, sidewalks etc. A space wide enough for big truck passage (wildfires truck usages as well) shall be configured. Hunters, wildlife, Saskatchewan, etc can thus traverse on e public parcel to another, unfettered and freely. Next similar type incidents or dust ups will likely result in gunfire and casualties. Preventative measures. Dismiss charges and toss out all cases, move on.

  5. Some commentary on this:
    Glenn Ferren
    “airspace” belongs to the private landowner, gonna have to call bulls*** on that one. that’s kinda like a landowner claiming he owns the riverbed of the river passing by his property…in which case he can feel free to build his own dam there or put a fence across said river.
    No, it isn’t like that at all because laws specifically dealing with right of public access to navigable streams are on the books expressly to protect that right.
    Glenn Ferren
    …. appears you are right, what I meant to say was in a rural environment/public lands access issue (not you house/yard, multi-story building in an urban environment) it should be bulls***….”Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.” … it appears to be a property issue – but by denying access to public property – would that not be a “taking” of your/my/our “commons” that would require some form of compensation. ???
    There’s a reason easements were invented. You are engaging in more of a philosophical argument than a factual one. Regardless, this case could possibly help resolve the question, if the hunters found a novel way to defend themselves.
    Glenn Ferren
    pretty factual that the landowner is trying to take a public resource (land/wildlife) for their personal use to the exclusion of the public’s use. And as in the case of air traffic, there are easily set limits to the landowner’s “airspace”. The “harm” to the landowner is lessened by the landowner’s intent. That “unclean hands” thing comes to mind.
    I don’t know what you are talking about, but I’m pretty sure you are in the same boat. Checkerboard land ownership – courtesy of the federal government’s enticement to railroad developers that paid them with every other section of undeveloped land – is a widespread and longtime reality of the real estate law in the west. It’s nothing new and comparing this issue to air traffic isn’t likely to get you far.
    Glenn Ferren
    we’ll see how it plays out, but IMHO the public landowner has just as many rights at a “corner” as the private landowner.

  6. “The new civil suit Iron Bar Holdings filed against the bowhunters in Carbon County District Court states that Elk Mountain Ranch “has a right to exclusive control, use, and enjoyment of its Property, which includes the airspace at the corner, above the Property … the surface of the land and the subsurface below it.”

    We have all seen the picture of the chain across the corner where the four boundaries meet, so why isn’t the landowner charged with trespassing or obstructing public air space? The hunters passed briefly through the owner’s airspace. The chain is a permanent taking of public airspace.

  7. Unless Elk Mountain Ranch has filed civil lawsuits against every airline in the U.S. for trespass of their “airspace” in the past, it would seem that they have a pitifully weak case against the hunters in this action. I hope the hunters are willing to file a countersuit claiming hunter harassment. That would probably be more successful.

  8. Wow!!! I hope some Wyoming writer and/ or filmmaker is onto this– The New West Western: Evil outsider landowner harrasses hunters who even brought a ladder to cross his patch of land!! Feds, elected officials from county etc are in cahoots with landowner? The great lawyer steps in to defend the hunters Also fascinating is the number of comments about this — obviously a hugely important issue, far more than the fate of coal, though, it seems, not a single animal met its maker. For the record, Carbon County is my favorite Wyoming County. So beautiful. So interesting. So cinematic.

    1. Wonderful descriptions of Carbon County, but you forgot one: CORRUPT
      It looks the elected officials are for sale there in the county seat of Rawlins.

      Anyway, here’s to hoping that come voting time this November, the taxpayers can assist Ashley Mayfield in discovering the world as a private enterprise lawyer (or dishwasher, doesn’t matter) and put someone in the office of County Attorney that is their for the people, not the rich out of state landowners and the welfare BLM ranchers

  9. This is what wealthy outsiders do. They sue everybody hoping everybody is too poor to defend themselves. These are not the people Wyoming needs to, or should, reward in any way. Especially with custom legislation designed to limit public access to public land.

    Wyoming needs this issue on a ballot for a state-wide vote if the legislature in Wyoming fails to protect access to public lands for hunting, fishing, recreation, etc.

    Too many elected reps are in the pockets of the wealthy ranchers. Too many answer to a select few while ignoring the majority. They also need to go.

  10. If you care about this wrongfull act by a landowner clearly harrassing hunters on pubic lands; write your Wyoming state legislators to oppose HB0103. Even though it is being sold to the public as NOT a corner crossing bill, it is this identical situation playing out unfavorably for sportsman.

    1. 2021 Wyoming Statutes
      Title 10 – Aeronautics
      Chapter 4 – Uniform State Law for Aeronautics
      Article 3 – Miscellaneous
      Section 10-4-302 – Ownership of Space.
      Universal Citation: WY Stat § 10-4-302 (2021)
      10-4-302. Ownership of space.

      The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath subject to the right of flight described in W.S. 10-4-303.

      2021 Wyoming Statutes
      Title 10 – Aeronautics
      Chapter 4 – Uniform State Law for Aeronautics
      Article 3 – Miscellaneous
      Section 10-4-303 – Low or Dangerous Flight; Landing on Land or Water of Another.
      Universal Citation: WY Stat § 10-4-303 (2021)
      10-4-303. Low or dangerous flight; landing on land or water of another.

      (a) Flight of aircraft, including unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, over the lands and waters of this state is lawful unless it is:

      (i) At such a low altitude as to interfere with the existing use to which the land or water, or the space over the land or water, is put by the owner;

      (ii) Conducted as to be imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or water; or

      (iii) In violation of the air commerce regulations promulgated by the department of transportation of the United States.

      (b) The landing of an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, on the lands or waters of another, without his consent, is unlawful, except in the case of a forced landing. For damages caused by a forced landing, however, the owner, operator or lessee of the aircraft or the airman shall be liable for actual damage caused by the forced landing.

      (c) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent an operator or pilot from operating an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft or vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, over his own property.

      1. Did you notice in Tile 10, section 10-4-303 there is no state remedy for criminal charges? In other words, these violations require a civil suit, which requires the plaintiff to show damages.

        1. Jeff,
          Now that a civil suit has filed by the plaintiff, I fully expect damages will be presented during the course of the Trial.

  11. As once my wifes grandfather said, depends on what side of the fence your on as far as ownership. Years ago wasn’t as much as a problem with landowners and public. Permission was granted by knowing or trading work or help with the owner. Since then big money has taken over, outfitters charging enormous prices and severely protecting their interest. Large corporations buying and closing off hunting to the public who might of hunted or enjoyed the property for years. Things have changed so much.I myself had battles on State ground . We did our homework as warden suggested knowing gps boundaries but still were harassed. Never being arrested because of knowing boundaries , still suffered the wrath of power. First of all pasture fences are always normally not on the boundaries and are fun for topology or convinence. Many lock gates are on State. When friends made the open gates by StAte land board, owners were real upset. It did open up about 3,000 acres to hunt which is still open but those that were involved were blackballed by owners. When these folks put in for any permit they would have to call the Game and fish in Cheyenne to say they would not hunt on properties owned by this corporation. Just the reach of big. Landowners and another form of harassment with game and fish playing along. They threw patty’s for wardens and let them hunt . Seemed like they had their own milita. Many hands of the owners would station pickups in key routes to move elk to certain routes to private which was hazing but hard to prove. It was interesting. Bottom line, you may win the war but lose the battle. Many have deeper pockets which could drive the average Joe into submission. The Golden Rule. Those with the Gold make the rules.

  12. Unbelievable! Fredric N. Eshelman should be ashamed of himself. The Oligarch, Feudal system of government and land management is alive and well in Wyoming. While I can’t do much about Mr. Eshelman, I can and will vote these political shills (State and Carbon out of office.

  13. According the the County Attorney’s bio, Ms. Mayfield has been a County Attorney officer lifer and has never practiced law in private. That’s the problem. The lowest branch on the Law business tree business is the position of deputy Co. Attorney, assistant Co. Attorney and-or Co. Attorney. There’s a huge difference between private practice lawyers who have to hustle for their bread vs. these steady paycheck types. The Co. types are pretty much immune to any actions they take, and still cash their weekly paycheck. The private types simply get fired and don’t collect a paycheck if they do a poor job. So now, here we are, Ashley Mayfield, immune from being fired or recalled, openly taking sides on this trespass issue by representing this rich, out of state landowner. Come election time in 2022, though, does she not think that the voters of Carbon County haven’t noticed? Does she not think that a majority of Carbon Co. voters are public land users? I’ve got to imagine that there are way more residents of Carbon Co. registered to vote vs. the right out of staters that can’t vote….but somehow get away with influencing Co. prosecuters. Hopefully the voters will help Ashfield ascend up the legal tree and give her a one way ticket to private practice, and not make ‘working’ for the public an option………….or in the least get her off the government dole. Maybe she can hire on with Elk Mountain ranch?

  14. Let me see if this is correct. The 4 hunters “allegedly” were involved with this corner crossing dispute early in the Fall of 2021. A Game Warden was present and did NOT issue an intent-to-hunt trespass charge. Let’s fast forward to February of 2022. The Carbon County Attorney, Ms. Ashley Mayfield pushes to add more charges against these hunters, an intent-to-hunt trespass citation. Clearly, even Ray Charles can see who’s pocket Ms. Mayfield hides in. If you want an example of a public servant sellout to big money, look no further then the office of the Carbon County Attorney. I’ve got to hand it to the owner of the Elk Mountain Ranch, Mr. Eshelman, he knows how to grease the wheels. This newest action by the County Attorney is absolutely blatant and in your face. The State of Wyoming has no recall measures to handle rogue elected officials so the best the people can do is vote and get your friends, family and neighbor to vote – vote this individual OUT

  15. Wyoming Game & Fish always sides with the big landowners…..always. It’s an anything goes proposition regarding wild game on these large tracts with the landowner, as long as he let’s the Game & Fish boys have run of the property for their “habitat projects” etc. but when Joe Public wants to access the adjoining BLM or State land, then it’s all out war against the hunter-fisherman-recreationalist. So, of course the game warden involved in this Carbon Co conflict will not be writing tickets to the landowner or his go-fers for harassing these hunters. The redshirt wardens are not your friends, sportsman. They’ll hide in the bushes for hours watching with bino’s hoping to catch you in violation. Writing tickets to the public and serving the big landowners is their mission, plus can’t forget they back up and support the Wyoming Outfitter and Guide Association. Don’t just blindly trust the Wyoming Game & Fish cuz’ they obviously don’t trust you when they’re beholden to the landowner and outfitter. But, you have the privilege of paying for their “service” so they can drive them fancy new green pickup trucks, LOL

  16. This is just a wealthy absentee landowner who thinks that the public land behind his property is his and not the citizens of the US. No damage was done and no harm was intended to the private land. Ranchers need to be out in their place on this one.

  17. If the hunters Attorneys are hanging their hat on the comparison of floating a River and corner crossing, they will lose.
    Water is a State resource, owned by the residents of the State, it is not considered “real property” as the boundaries are constantly changing which is nearly impossible to survey a property line, based on the edge of the water.
    Secondly the US Supreme Court has held a landowner owns the “airspace” above their property to areas navigable by flight. Additionally Wyoming State Statues also state a Landowner owns the airspace to the “right of flight”.

      1. Jeff,
        I’m fairly certain you’re fully aware of the Supreme Court case, given your relationship as a Board Member (or perhaps a former Board Member ? ) of
        Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, who is also a co sponsor of the Go Fund Me page for the legal defense of the hunters.
        Now that we full disclosure of your affiliation, to the case out of the way.
        The readers can find information on United States vs Causby at the link below.

  18. It looks like the people are trying to regain something that belonged to them the whole time – acess to public land. It also looks like a wealthy landowner, with help from the Wyoming Game and Fish (who are looking the other way on the hunter harassment charge), the Carbon County Sheriff (who wrote the trespass ticket) and the Carbon Co. Attorney (who is playing out the landowners demand, wish by wish), is trying to steal not only access, but the public land itself. Wow, sure has a lot of help from taxpayer funded entities. Can’t forget to add in the shill State district Representatives and Senators that are involved with this scheme. We the people need to stand up and not back down because if we do, the above named will be happy to take what belongs to you and both penalize and imprison those who try to access and enjoy YOUR public lands

  19. These hunters were absolutely hounded on the public land by rep’s of the landowner. From all accounts a slam dunk hunter harassment charge. It looks like nobody, be it a Wyoming Game Warden, County Sheriff or the County Prosecutor is going to take action. Hmmm, it appears that the Wy G & F, County Sheriff and Carbon County Prosecutor are all in the landowners pocket. Big Money landowners and the Welfare Wyoming Cowboys should pull a lot of sway in the Equality State, wouldn’t you say? They sure know how to get their shills to work for them and election year after year manage to get these gophers into the state legislature.

    Another question, is the Rawlins BLM office also on the take here? Resisting to provide access to public documents – lease permits? It’s time for the hardworking residents of this state to take it back from the special interests

  20. Not having any background information on the hunters or Elk Mountain Ranch/Iron Bar Holdings owners/operators.The courts will ultimately decide the outcome of this senseless costly battle. There might well be unscrupulous individuals on both sides of this coin but my wager on this age old battle between one prick and a million (the skunk and the porcupine) is on the porcupine.
    I whole-hardheartedly support a corporation or an individual who actually owns property in any state to restrict intrusion onto their property for any reason. But when a corporation or an individual attempts to interpret Wyoming’s fence out law in order to keep outdoor enthusiasts from accessing federal or state lands this corner crossing incident will give rise to more such cases. In hind sight when those fences were constructed it might have been in the best interest of the state and landowners to have built better access points into these corner sections.
    “As I went walking I saw a sign there,
    And on the sign it said “No Trespassing.”
    But on the other side it didn’t say nothing.
    That side was made for you and me.”
    “Nobody living can ever stop me,
    As I go walking that freedom highway;
    Nobody living can ever make me turn back
    This land was made for you and me. ”
    Woody Guthrie

  21. It’s about time the people we put in CHEYENNE start to work to end this stealing of our public ground. Half of our state is BLM & state sections but 1/2 of this is shut down by private access. It all boils down to money. The rich putting it to the hard working people of WYO so we need to put people in Cheyenne that works for us not people like billionaire Fred Eshelman from NC. Liberate our public land from private landowners.

  22. We are not hunters so we really don’t have a dog in this fight. I would love to be a juror in this trial. This whole concept is silly and a waste of court time and money. These men apparently never stepped foot on Elk Mountain land. Ok, they breathed some of Elk Mountain’s air. Big whoop. This suit should be dismissed with prejudice. All expenses incurred by the hunters should be reimbursed by Elk Mountain

  23. What you need to realize is, in the legal profession world, you have to be good, a go getter and drum up business to earn your money. Those that aren’t quite up to that task seek the path of least resistance with a steady paycheck. County Attorney offices offer such sanctuary to the bottom half. You receive either a weekly or bi monthly paycheck and usually the most you’ll be expected to do is to corner up some elderly lady on a speeding charge in the court room. Many prosecutors get their jollies waging war with taxpayers who sign their paycheck. Not the best and brightest reside in the County courthouses spread throughout Wyoming.

    That said, these corner cross issue is clearly over the head of the Carbon County Attorney’s Office and in a perfect world, the situation would be zoomed right over their heads and taken directly to federal court. It’s also very apparent that the County Attorney there in Carbon County isn’t shy about representing the interests of a wealthy out of state landowner. The fate of these hunters shouldn’t be put into the hands of amateurs that obviously enjoy sticking it to the people.

    I’m Craig Anders and I support this message.

    1. Well said and it should be mentioned that a couple of the co-sponsors of the failed trespass bill are both deputy county attorneys (Johnson and Fremont counties). Wolves come in sheep’s clothing, oldest trick in the book. These wolves should realize that we can see them coming from a mile away….or, is it they just don’t care? Voters of this state need to open our eyes and up our game and eliminate the predators from our legislature

  24. Grazing permits and special use permits on the BLM should be easily accessible and no need for a subpoena to receive a copy. But now, if I’ve read the article correctly, the defendants had to subpoena the BLM to obtain these records? So, someone please correct me here if I’m wrong but, is the BLM now working on behalf of the Elk Mountain ranch and the Carbon Co. attorney to thwart and stonewall the defendants? All an individual has to do is simply go to the Rawlins BLM office and request to see these permits. Obviously they’re filed there and are open to viewing by the public. If I’m correct and there’s a collaboration going on with Elk Mtn, Carbon Co. and the BLM (and of course can’t forget to mention the turncoat State reps in the wyoming legislature), then a whole bunch of bad guys are circling their wagons. I’d call this war against the citizenry and a chess move to work forward and try and ban public access to public lands

  25. HB 0103 on “corner crossing” is of concern to me. Very wealthy absentee landlords have purchased vast quanties of land in Wyoming. The corner crossing bill locks up tens of thousands of public lands along the Union Pacific Corridor in southern Wyoming as well as vast amounts of BLM and state lands elsewhere. The “Elk Mountain Ranch”, the “Overland Trail Properties” west of Elk Mountain are just two examples. These properties were purchased by absentee billionaires that allow no trespass except to wealthy clients. The problem is the ranch or properties are doubled in size because every other section is public. They get twice the ranch, pay half the property taxes and get to pay $1.35 per AUM on the land they lease for a song from the governmants involved. What a sweet deal! They actually get their cake and eat it too. This bill is a travesty for Wyoming hunters, fishermen, and all other outdoor recreationists to enjoy our public lands. Futhermore can floaters, fishermen, canoers, tubers, all be fined for floating over private land? How high up does their private property rights go? A Foot? Ten feet? A mile? Can I land a plane?
    A lot if issues need to be sorted out before a passage of a bill like this. Private propery owners have their rights but so do we Wyoming citizens have a right to use OUR public lands.

  26. The state should have & enforce a right of way at these corners that allow free access to public property by “We the People” who own these lands.

  27. Absurd , that anybody other then a country can own airspace. Wyoming needs to start sticking up for its citizens and the sportsmen. NOT the special interest groups with the money. It is public land, so quit denying us access to it,

  28. Look. It’s obvious that some here in Wyoming “are for sale”….this includes state reps from Riverton to Buffalo and let’s not fail to mention, County Attorneys in Carbon County. It’s also obvious that the Carbon County Attorney is a shill for the Elk Mountain Ranch and is going to “pile it on” with more charges. Very curious, though, why there hasn’t been charges filed against Elk Mountain employees for hunter harassment? This harassment was out in the open, recorded and “in your face” blatant. Instead of being the “Cowboy State” ole’ Wyoming might just end up earning the moniker “Sellout State”. To fix things and get the citizens back to full title of ownership of the state, we need to expose these turncoats and throw the bums out come election time

  29. Take away all the fluff and what is really at stake is the desire for private landowners to control public lands they don’t own. The apparent fact that they harassed hunters who were using those lands demonstrates their attitude that public lands belong to them, not the public.

  30. The river paddling reference is one worth examining in detail. It provides an example of a key exception to private property access. A paddler is allowed to land, exit their boat, scout, and if needed, portage around river hazards on private property. These are typically fences strung across creeks and rivers. Thus exceptions for traversing private property without the owners consent for recreational use are clearly recognized by courts in many states.

    1. Flowing water is a resource of the State and the people of the State. It is not considered “real property “ as the boundaries are constantly moving and difficult to survey.
      You are incorrect in respect to getting out of the boat. You must remain in the boat at all times, unless you need to maneuver around an obstacle.

      1. Water being a resource or not, when floating over private land a person is in the landowners air space, which you seem to think is so critical in the corner crossing case. Point is, there are exceptions not listed in statute.