LARAMIE—A March ruling by a federal appeals court in a widely watched corner-crossing case determined that private landowners cannot bar access to public lands with fences, trespass actions or other methods.
Hunters, recreators and public lands advocates celebrated the ruling and its implications for the states within the 10th Circuit — Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Oklahoma and Kansas.
Thursday, however, Ryan Semerad, the attorney who represented the four Missouri hunters in the federal civil lawsuit, urged recreators to exercise caution and goodwill if attempting to corner cross — or step from one piece of public land to another where those two parcels meet at a common corner with two private parcels, in a checkboard pattern of ownership. Wyoming’s checkerboard spans more than 2 million acres.
“There are limitations to that decision,” Semerad said Thursday during a corner-crossing panel discussion in Laramie. “That doesn’t mean go jump on your side by side … and just have at it. It doesn’t mean you get to go on private property without permission, consent or something else. What it means is that you have reasonable access to step from one section to the next section, so long as you can be situated appropriately, you know where the monument marker is, you know where you’re going and you respect that.”
There are also outstanding questions for landowners, said Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna, another panelist. His group filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the landowner who sued the Missouri hunters for stepping over, but never touching, Elk Mountain Ranch property.
“It’s pretty clear that you cannot deny access to these checkerboard lands,” Magagna said. “Does that mean that you have to allow crossing at every corner? If I want to identify one of the four corners that I control as the access point, do I have the liberty to do that? Or if I want to designate a path through the middle of my private land in lieu of granting access across the corners?
“Those are many of the questions that still remain out there to be addressed,” Magagna said.
As they talked, it became clear that interpretations of the ruling still vary widely. But both urged common sense and respectful communication — traditional tenets of Wyoming hunting etiquette regarding private landowners.
“We need to remember that it’s a culture of cooperation with these lands, and that’s how this is going to work moving forward,” Semerad said.
The panel was part of the Wyoming Outdoor Recreation Summit, a two-day event bringing together outdoor recreation business leaders, public lands agency officials, nonprofits and others to strengthen the burgeoning industry and enhance access to resources. The summit is one product of newly expanded state government support of the outdoor recreation — Wyoming’s Office of Outdoor Recreation helps put it on.
Appropriately, the panel addressed a legal question that has captivated recreators in Wyoming and the nation.
Hunters, a wealthy landowner, trespass charges
In 2020, hunters Brad Cape, John Slowensky and Phillip Yeomans corner crossed to hunt on Elk Mountain, then did so again with Zach Smith in 2021.
Carbon County ranch owner Fred Eshelman sued the four men in 2022 for passing through the airspace above his property on their way to hunt.
Eshelman sued to block them, and anyone else, from corner crossing to reach some 11,000 acres of federal and state land enmeshed in his 50-square-mile ranch, a coveted hunting ground known for its abundant wildlife.
That set off a series of court challenges and appeals in a case that involved everything from the limits of private property rights to the extent of airspace and the legality of preventing the public from accessing public land.
With implications not only for the 2.4 million acres of “corner-locked” land in Wyoming, but also for 8.3 million acres across the West, the case gained national attention, particularly among hunters.
It culminated in March with the appeals court decision. In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel sided against Eshelman, citing an act of Congress that preempts Wyoming trespass law.
Congress enacted the Unlawful Inclosures Act in 1885. “No one may completely prevent or obstruct another from peacefully entering or freely passing over or through public lands,” the act says, according to the appellate judges.
The act, which explicitly prohibits “obstructing transit over public lands by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or inclosing,” supersedes Wyoming trespass law, the judges ruled.
What that means in practical terms, Semerad said Thursday, is this: “You can now step from one section of public land to the next. In Wyoming, there is no state law, statute or regulation that can stop you; the federal law would preempt it.”
Questions remain
Magagna believes the ruling is aimed explicitly at the checkerboard — not islands of public land surrounded by private land elsewhere, he said Thursday.
Semerad disagreed. “The Unlawful Inclosures Act applies to all public lands,” he said.
Moderator Dan McCoy, director of the Jay Kemmerer WORTH Institute, asked if the Wyoming Legislature or the state could have a bearing on the issue.
The Legislature’s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee will discuss corner crossing when it holds an interim meeting June 5-6 in Dubois.
Though the ruling clearly states the Unlawful Inclosures Act is supreme, Magagna said, “I think where there is opportunity, potentially for the Legislature should they choose to do so, is to better define the tools that are available and the limitations on the use of those tools.” He also brought up land exchanges by which more public land could become accessible without the necessity of corner crossing.
So what should recreators do if they come across a corner that’s fenced off, McCoy asked.
“If you come across a fenced corner, call me, call the U.S. Attorney’s office because that’s unlawful,” Semerad said. “That is straight up a violation of the Unlawful Inclosures Act.”
The March decision might not be the final word in the corner-crossing case. There is a chance it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Semerad said. The earliest the high court could see it is next winter, he said.
In the meantime, both men stressed a spirit of collaboration when it comes to public land users and private property owners.
“Respect and cooperation is always going to take us much further than if we’re just going to be battling it out all the time,” Semerad said.
“The real answer to all this, to me and I think to many people I represent,” Magagna added, “is the relationships we build in Wyoming with people, between private landowners and the recreation and outdoor community, particularly the sportsmen, hunters and fishermen. So I think that the key thing, for now at least, is to build those relationships.”
Angus M. Thuemer Jr. contributed to this story.
I am neither a hunter nor a rancher, altho as I posted before I grew up on a sheep ranch east of the prison farm. I have a really hard time understanding the hate and disdain for the food producers. How many of you or us can survive without food produced by others? The alternative to grazing sheep and cattle and keeping them within fences on private property (still not necessarily safe) is very high food costs, especially meat.
The more food producers you can force oust of business so you can play heap big hunter will create higher store prices
No one is trying to take away any rancher’s land. They just want to stop large private land owners from stealing land from the public; that’s what happens when you keep the public out of public land that you happen to surround.
Also, there’s no reason why ranchers can’t graze on land the public hunts on; this happens all the time on non-landlocked BLM land. The only thing this risks is the rancher’s side-hustle leasing the public land to hunting outfitters
Most of us respect the ranching community in the State of Wyoming. The rich western history of settlers moving West and homesteading a rough and rugged land in the late 1800’s, that only the toughest and relentless spirited types could possibly survive and succeed in. However, fast forward to the 21’st century, we are faced with lands that have multiple uses, not exclusive to agriculture, oil, gas and mining. A multiuse system provides more economic benefits for the state, to think otherwise is not practical or rational. I contend that outdoor recreationalists, be it hikers, fishermen/women and hunters would generate more revenue to local communities than a cow/calf operation alone would, e.g., lodging, restaurants, fuel, etc. I suggest the Stock Growers Association be more open-minded about this. They seem to be fine with oil, gas and mining, but opposed to any recreational use. Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the “Supremacy Clause” refers to federal law taking precedence over any conflicting state law, you cannot argue this fact. The state legislators have a profound history of backing the stock growers in Wyoming and its understandable due to the state’s ranching history. I’ll finish with these two statements: If these property owners amidst the checker-board system, managed by the BLM are allowed to prohibit land access on public lands now, can we possibly imagine having any better chance of accessing these public lands under state ownership? Our Republican representatives want to sell federal lands to the states, fight these efforts by speaking out and attending public meetings and by voting them out of office!
The problem with opening up landlocked public land to recreation is that it threatens the side-hustle large landowners have leasing access to hunting outfitters. No one is going to pay them if they can just access the public land for free.
When you take away rich peoples’ ability to make money off of land they don’t own, they become surprisingly prickly.
While the court decision favoring corner crossing is a huge plus, I do fear that harassment and intimidation by landowners will still occur. It’s no secret that the Wyoming Game and Fish WGF is very pro large landowner and I do not foresee hunter harassment charges being issued to these landowners and their lackeys. Case in point, the Fred Eshelman thugs time and time again hazed and harassed the four Missouri hunters, even the bodacious ranch manager entered their tent without consent. WGF did nothing. In lieu of being protected by hunter harassment laws, don’t be surprised if the harassment continues which may result in serious injury or death when a law abiding public land user stands their ground. WGF has long sold out to both the big land barons and the welfare cowboy cabal, so no wonder Mr. Jim Managna thinks he can still tweak and manipulate the court ruling into an advantage for the pennies per day grazing lease crowd
Instead of him-hawing around the judgement, trying to create new rules like “we’ll decide which corner you can cross” I’d have a lot more respect for welfare sheep boss Magnagna simply stating “we’re going to guard all corners and stop you from crossing’. It’s time these welfare cowpokes put their money where their mouth is and many of us would be damned if “ole’ buddy can you spare me a dime” Magnagna or his wanna be thugs will stop us. Be willing to have a thrown down right then and there, we’d love the opportunity, otherwise Magnagna, keep your mouth shut
It’s way past time that Jim Magagna realized that a spirit of respect, cooperation, and collaboration is a two-way street. Some Wyoming ranchers, particularly those ultra-wealthy newcomers buying up Wyoming’s ranches, seem to think this is still the wild west when cattlemen were king, and could ride roughshod over anyone who thought otherwise. Magagan has been a champion of such hubris.
It’s time that Jim Magagna faces the facts of this ruling. You lost Jim. And no Jim, you can’t decide which corner the public can cross. It’s ludicrous for you to even suggest such a thing and you know better! You and WSGA have done everything in your power to prevent the people who own these public lands from legally accessing them. And now that the courts have ruled in favor of the public lands owners like me, you continue to whine and try to weasel around the ruling of the courts. You lost Magagna. Get over it and move on. Perhaps you should consider retirement.
What happens when a corner/crosser shoots a big game animal? How does he transport it back across the corner?
Quarter it or bone it out and pack it out on your back with a pack frame or backpack.
Bone out the meat, put it in you backpack and haul it out.
Backpack.
There has long been a imbalance in land rights and public access to public lands.I accepted this as I felt it gave wildlife places to be undisturbed. With private landowners selling access to these lands,,that is no longer true. It is reasonable that this subject be settled in a manner that allows fair access.
It’s long past the time for the federal government to be the adult in the room by undoing the nonsense checkerboard land title pattern. Impose imminent domain using an acre – for an – acre land swap so the public and private title holders have contiguous parcels. No money need change hands.
John, absolutely. We do have landowners abstaining from the obnoxious spoiled brat routine and allowing access; incentivize that approach with tax breaks or similar. For those not cooperating with public landowners, Imminent Domain in either a 1-1 swap or simply cut a 25-yard path thru each corner, and pay the landowner the fair value, minus whatever they are receiving in USDA subsidies.
Acre for acre? Are you out of your mind? Very little land acre for acre is of similar value. BLM and USFS have been doing land exchanges for many decades. I can’t think of an exchange that ever equaled out in value using an acre for acre trade. Public access is an issue that should never been an issue. The public deserves access to their land without illegal blocking.
Once gain Jim Magnagna is trying to pull the old “yea but” and “maybe if we do it this way” routine to circumvent the judgement regarding corner crossing. Your side LOST, get over it and any attempts to block or harass hunters legally entering any public land will result in consequences or an old fashioned settle it right here on the spot situation. The almost free reign of terror controlling public land is OVER. I’ve never seen such a bold welfare bum not only take the handout but want more
I believe there may be quite a bit more “….battling it out….” (Semerad quote). The grapevine chatter in the livestock and private landowner community is that it really hasn’t been about corner crossing from the get-go, and some of the reader comments support this. Literal corner crossing is one thing, “punching a hole” in a mile or more of private land (as an example) to access public land is quite another and will not be tolerated in the Legislature (unless the members have collectively lost their minds?)
If Governor’s office, Legislative office, individual Legislators, WSGA, etc. read these comments, please stop talking about “….thoughtful exchanges….” and put some real leadership into establishing some common-sense ground rules to making some of these exchange ideas reality…that address both legitimate public access -AND- private property rights concerns. Otherwise, it’s another ugly battle brewing, in my opinion.
While we’re at it, it’s ridiculous as an out of state hunter i can bird hunt, fish, and hike in the wilderness ( fedral land) but when I have an elk tag in my hand it’s illegal. Total scam by the state and the outfitters.
Common sence must continue. It would be best that the corners not be just a dot on the map and ground but be a path wide enough to drive threw if allowed by the BLM to allow for disabled or even horses to cross the corners of a checkerboard. Put the public back in public lands, this will also aid game management. The efforts of the wealthy land owners trying to lock up the land would be like taking our national parks and only allowing americans full access and foreign visitors could only access portions of the park or only access designated trails.
It would be nice if all public land, was reasonably accessible to the public. By disallowing users to cross a very small distance of private land, some landowners are in effect getting huge thousand acre tracts of land walled off from the public. If it’s public, the public must have access.
Ha, head welfare cowboy Magagna wants to bend the rules. We’re very shocked. So Magagna can clearly understand this – ALL corners or eligible for crossing, not just one corner pulled out of his behind on a whim. And yes, Magagna, the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act covers ALL public grounds, not just a few select parcels of your choosing. The playing dumb act is getting old If you can’t fathon this Magagna, then get your 4.5 cents grazing fee per day/per cow livestock OFF the public land
Never underestimate the Power of the Catapult Coupled with Air Bag Technology.
“Eat the Rich!”! ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau …. and “F”-Off Corporate Welfare Queen Magagna!
Exactly what Tom said.
Your comment makes perfect nonsense to me.