Stock growers won’t support a bill that would clarify Wyoming law following a court decision allowing public access to public land by corner crossing, an industry representative says.
The draft bill, “Corner crossing clarification,” is headed to the Legislature early next year after the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee narrowly endorsed it in August. The measure is intended to encapsulate the 49-page decision of the U.S.10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that landowners cannot block the public from accessing public land in the checkerboard landscape of public-private land ownership.
Corner crossers step from public land to public land, momentarily passing through the airspace above the adjacent private parcels but without setting foot on private land. Carbon County ranch owner Fred Eshelman sued four hunters in 2022 for trespassing after they corner crossed. He lost his case.
The bill provides “a clarifying exception to the offenses of trespass,” spelling out that a corner-crosser “does not commit criminal trespass.” The measure also would immunize corner crossers who make “incidental contact” with private property, “without causing damage to any privately owned land.”
That’s one toe over the line drawn by the 10th Circuit, which decided against Eshelman based on the premise that four Missouri hunters made no physical contact with private property. The corner-crossing clarification bill appears to build on the de minimis doctrine, a legal concept a court uses when refusing to consider trifling matters.
“Powerful interests will continue to test the boundaries of public access.”
Jack Polentes
The Wyoming Stock Growers Association, which fought alongside Eshelman in his court battles by filing supportive briefs, won’t support the corner-crossing clarification, said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the association.
“I don’t think that bill is anything we could accept because of the uncertainties,” he said in an interview. Those uncertainties include incidental contact, the potential to bridge corners for motorized travel, an increased potential for trespassing, abuses of private property and other arguments, many of which were raised by Eshelman in court.
“What does it mean I can corner cross?” Magagna asked. “At what extent have I exceeded my ability to do so?
“I think that bill, other than making a statement, really is not a workable answer to anything,” he said.
No blood, no foul
One of ranchers’ concerns, Magagna said, is that people are now free to go to public land that’s enmeshed in private ranches, traipsing nearer private property.
Eshelman, through attorneys, described what that would mean at his Elk Mountain Ranch, which has more than 20,000 private acres around another approximate 11,000 acres of public land, mostly managed by the BLM.
“Corner crossing … imposes costs on landowners — including trespasses, poaching, littering, fires, predators, and the risk of accidents — that
accompany greater public presence near private property,” Eshelman argued unsuccessfully in front of the 10th Circuit.
Although “there’s no question about the legal decision,” reached by the 10th Circuit, Magagna predicts conflicts.
“I foresee that this will lead, in some instances, to corner crossing that will result in some abuses,” he said. “It’s one thing if a few hunters go across the corner. It’s another thing if all of a sudden 100 people want to have an event.
“I think those are the type of things we need to address,” he said. “We need to come back home and say, okay, the court has made their decision, what can we do here in Wyoming to make sure that that decision is honored, but it’s honored in a way that respects private property rights.”
He proposed that a landowner might provide “a more viable” access to a corner-accessible public parcel than via a corner. A landowner might offer access along a road or trail that’s farther away from stock, for example, than a corner. In such an instance, Magagna suggested, the public land would no longer be isolated, a necessary circumstance the 10th Circuit imposed in its access ruling.
In other words, if a ranch owner provided a path to isolated public land, would corner crossing no longer be a legal way to get to that public parcel?
The Wyoming Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the group that backed the Missouri hunters through five courts to their favorable 10th Circuit ruling, doesn’t like that idea.
“If you want to pick another spot, it’s not going to be at the expense of the actual corner,” said Buzz Hettick, co-chair of the Wyoming chapter. “You [stock growers] filed a brief [against us] and now you want to come to the table and talk about it?
“I’m not going to let them dictate how we move forward on this,” Hettick said. “I think they’ve enjoyed use of our public lands exclusively for a long time.”
A second rodeo
Although the Wyoming corner crossing case drew wide attention, the civil suit at Elk Mountain is not the first time corner crossing has been tested in court. But a legal gray area persisted until the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to review Eshelman’s case.
An Albany County judge threw out a corner crossing case in 2004. “Albany County Circuit Judge Robert Castor’s not-guilty verdict in the case against Bill Kearney raises the possibility that public lands in Wyoming may be more accessible to the public than previously thought,” the Associated Press reported at the time.
The judge didn’t give a reason for his decision, but the ruling prompted then-Attorney General Pat Crank to write a memorandum to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department on the legality of corner crossing. Crank asserted that Castor’s “not guilty” finding had no binding effect on any court. But while corner crossing might be a tresspass, it was not a hunting violation that Game and Fish could prosecute, the opinion stated. That steeled the resolve of hunters who believed corner crossing was legal, Hettick said.
Another unexplained outcome occurred during the hunters’ misdemeanor criminal trial in Rawlins in 2022. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers grilled the hunters before deciding to back them in court, Hettick said.
Although he was confident with the facts of the matter, “it spooked me to take the case,” he said, because “with a jury you never know.”
A jury of six found the hunters not guilty. The foreman would not comment to WyoFile about the verdict.
A law student suggested the outcome was the result of jury nullification — rejection of what jurors saw as an unjust law — in an article published in The University of Chicago Law Review in 2023.
“The acquittal was likely nullification,” Burke Snowden wrote, “because the facts presented made it clear that the outdoorsmen hovered over the private property.”
Carbon County Sheriff Alex Bakken, whose office cited the hunters for misdemeanor criminal trespass in 2021 in a case separate from Eshelman’s civil suit, told the Travel Committee this summer, “more clarification would be beneficial.”
No toe over the line
Bakken recently took to Facebook after the Supreme Court declined to consider the 10th Circuit decision.
“The Carbon County Sheriff’s Office will continue to operate under the United States Court of Appeals 10th Circuit Decision,” he wrote. Although corner crossing is allowed, that’s not a license to trespass, he warned.
Trespassers “will be charged accordingly,” he wrote
He reminded readers that the 10th Circuit decision applies only to Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, “not the entire West.” In Montana, the director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks said her state still considers corner crossing to be trespassing, according to the Missoula Current.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said the 10th Circuit ruling applies to 3.5 million acres in the court’s jurisdiction, 2.4 million of which is in Wyoming. About 8.3 million acres across the West was considered “corner-locked” — accessible only to private neighboring landowners and their guests if corner crossing is prosecuted as a trespass — before the 10th Circuit decision.
The hunting group warned of continued efforts to exclude the public from land owned by all Americans.
“Today’s win is historic, but it cannot be mistaken for a finish line,” Jack Polentes, a senior manager for BHA said in a statement on the day the Supreme Court refused to hear Eshelman’s appeal. “Powerful interests will continue to test the boundaries of public access in statehouses and courtrooms across the country.”
Hettick added, “I think it’s a win for the American public. These public lands, we’re going to be able to access more than we did before. That’s pretty awesome.”
Although members of Wyoming’s legislative Travel Committee talked about debating amendments to the draft bill, they backed the measure without any and have not listed it on the agenda for their Nov. 6 meeting.
For the record, Sens. Brian Boner of Douglas, Larry Hicks of Baggs and Stacy Jones of Rock Springs voted against the bill along with Reps. Marilyn Connolly of Buffalo, Robert Wharff of Evanston and Pam Thayer of Riverton. All are Republicans.
Republican Sens. Bill Landen of Casper, Wendy Schuler of Evanston and GOP Reps. Andrew Byron of Jackson, Elissa Campbell of Casper, and Steve Harshman of Casper voted for the clarification bill along with Democratic Reps. Karlee Provenza of Laramie and Liz Storer of Jackson. Rep. Julie Jarvis, a Casper Republican, was excused.
Thank you WyoFile, for your continued coverage. Keep public lands in public hands, and remove from office, those that are against the Laws, and Constitution!
Angus Thuermer deserves a lot of credit for bring the corner crossing/WSGA scam out in the open and it would be very wise for the leader of the Stockgrowesr circus to NOT take Thuermer’s phone calls. Obviously, Magagna is far from a wise man and with each Wyofile interview all he can offer is a further deteriorating rant of a clown
And another thing, didn’t Representative Wharff used to be a champion of the group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife? Voting against public lands access doesn’t appear to be very favorable to sportspeople.
The one and only.
The idea of a landowner providing a “more viable access” by existing roads or trails might be a fair response to corner crossing, but I see that as a means of landowners acquiring more dollars. If you avoid my corners and cross where I tell you, it’ll just take a “modest trespass fee” to do that. I for one don’t think much of having to pay for the privilege of hunting my public lands.
I looks to me that Magagna is really grasping at straws while he continues to oppose the court’s decision. He is apparently concerned with people traipsing near private land. Can’t have that. It appears that he is more comfortable with people who amble along with more purpose in their step as opposed to those who might be traipsing – wandering reluctantly, slowly, and aimlessly. Weird argument. I don’t think he’ll get anywhere with that one.
Just remember hunters that all these republicans like Bakken and all the others you support are actually against you. Yes, each and every one of you . The local law enforcement that you support will not hesitate to cite you for trespassing if they suspect even an atom of you touched private land. The legislature cannot outlaw corner crossing now, but that inflames each and every square inch of a lot of them. You, we, whoever keep putting a bunch of people from an industry that contributes nothing to this states economy and gives them an undue influence. According to them, it’s not your land. It’s theirs. Remember this isn’t the big city where they don’t cite or arrest people for trivial things because they are too busy or care less. They uphold the law to the letter and often times over, and will not hesitate to take you to court and spend to defend.
I was very hesitant in making these comments, but the audacity of this man to not accept a judicial decision is alarming. Reciprocity, you access your private land, the general public accesses public land. This representative surely is convinced that his stock growers association is entitled to our public lands to use at their own discretion. Sounds pretty bold, arrogant, entitled and flat out unlawful to me. The BLM must have some strong ties with this association to have permitted the unlawful fencing off of public land. I think the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) needs to investigate and root out the bad actors at the top in this agency. The general population pays the taxes that fund all your bailout programs that your association glady collects when things go bad. One of our goals listed on your website states “Promote a positive public image.” I would say this representative failed to read this.
Let’s get to the “Skinny” on all this. This is what these AG folks contribute compared to all other industries in the United States of America:
Federal programs that directly or commonly provide money to U.S. livestock/“stock” growers (cattle, sheep, other ruminants, feedlot operators, some forage producers): Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Emergency Livestock Relief/Disaster programs (ELRP/ELAP/ELAP-type), Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance (subsidized through USDA/RMA), Federal crop-insurance (for feed crops) and its indemnities, Dairy Margin Coverage (for dairy), Market/commodity relief packages (eg. historic MFP or CFAP type payments when authorized), Conservation & working-lands programs (EQIP, CSP, CRP payments affecting grazing/lands), Farm Service Agency (FSA) disaster/loan programs, and ad-hoc emergency or pandemic payments (e.g., CFAP/other pandemic-era & trade-aid payments). (Detailed list + sources below.)
U.S. Government Accountability Office
+3
Farm Service Agency
+3
Farm Service Agency
+3
What share of U.S. federal tax receipts is “contributed by this AG group”? There is no official government series that reports “percentage of federal tax receipts paid specifically by livestock/stock growers**. If you use the farm sector’s direct value-added share of the U.S. economy (~0.8% of U.S. GDP for farm output in 2023) as a rough upper-bound proxy, that suggests livestock/farm businesses pay on the order of well under 1% of total federal receipts (FY2023 total federal receipts ≈ $4.44 trillion). But this is only a very rough, structural estimate — taxes actually paid vary by crop/commodity, corporate vs. individual filing, payroll taxes, and many other factors. (Sources and a worked example below.)
Economic Research Service
+1
Does the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) account for a percentage of Wyoming GDP? No — the WSGA is a trade/industry association, not an industry sector that produces goods or services whose value is recorded in GDP. You can measure Wyoming’s livestock/agriculture sector contribution: several WY sources put agriculture (production & processing) at roughly 2.4% of Wyoming’s GDP (and livestock makes up the majority of that). But you cannot attribute a percent of state GDP to the WSGA itself.
economic-impact-of-ag.uada.edu
+2
NASS
+2
1) Federal programs and typical subsidy/payment channels that benefit livestock (“stock”) growers
Below are the major program categories that regularly provide payments or financial support to livestock producers (with representative agency pages or analyses):
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP) — pays for livestock deaths from adverse weather, predators, etc. (FSA).
Farm Service Agency
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) — drought/grazing loss payments for eligible producers.
Farm Service Agency
Emergency livestock/disaster programs (ELAP / ELRP / ad-hoc disaster assistance) — payments for losses not covered elsewhere (wildfire, flood, drought, other emergencies). (FSA / Federal Register announcements).
Farm Service Agency
+1
Risk-management insurance programs / subsidized premium insurance (including Livestock Risk Protection, LRP) — private insurance whose premiums are substantially subsidized by USDA Risk Management Agency for some products.
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Federal Crop Insurance & related indemnities — while crop insurance is “crop” focused, it directly helps livestock producers who buy feed (corn/hay) or who depend on forage crops — and large crop-insurance indemnities are a major component of farm program support.
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Conservation & working-lands payments (EQIP, CSP, CRP, etc.) — payments to manage grazing lands, restore rangelands, or enroll land in conservation programs that benefit ranchers.
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) and dairy support — if dairy is relevant to the user’s definition of “stock,” dairy programs are important support mechanisms.
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Ad-hoc market and trade relief payments (e.g., Market Facilitation Program, Coronavirus Food Assistance Program [CFAP], Economic Assistance packages) — Congress and USDA have provided episodic/large payments in years with trade shocks, pandemics, or price collapses; livestock producers have often been recipients of portions of these programs. (See GAO/EWG reporting on large episodic payments from 2018–2023.)
EWG
+1
FSA loans, emergency loans, conservation cost-share and other program payments/grants — administered locally by FSA/NRCS/RD.
Farmers.gov
Important note: “Subsidy” is used differently by different sources — some count only direct annual payments, others include crop-insurance indemnities, loan-deficiency payments, tax expenditures, conservation payments, and ad-hoc emergency packages. Different analyses (USDA, GAO, EWG, USAFacts) count different things, so totals differ substantially depending on definition.
USAFacts
+1
2) How much money (ballpark) — what the data tell us
USDA/GAO analyses and investigative groups show tens of billions in government support flow to agriculture each year when you include direct payments plus federally backed crop insurance indemnities and ad-hoc aid. For example, recent years’ direct government farm program payments have varied widely; analyses note large multi-billion dollar packages for disaster and pandemic relief (e.g., billions targeted to livestock losses in 2023–2024).
U.S. Government Accountability Office
+1
Environmental Working Group (EWG) and GAO have reported large multi-decade totals for livestock-related support and shown that disaster and pandemic relief have been large components of livestock assistance (EWG: USDA livestock/seafood subsidies totaled tens of billions across decades). For a precise annual dollar figure you want (e.g., “how many $ this year went to cattle producers?”), I can pull the most recent USDA/FSA payment tables and GAO breakdowns and produce a year-by-year table — tell me which year(s) you want (example: FY2023, 2024).
EWG
+1
3) “What percentage of U.S. taxes received each year are contributed by this AG group?”
No official statistic reports tax receipts by industry at the level of “livestock/stock growers.” Federal receipts are published by source (individual income tax, payroll, corporate, etc.), not by industry paying them.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
However, some useful comparators:
Farm output (value of production on U.S. farms) was about $222.3 billion in 2023 — ≈0.8% of U.S. GDP (ERS/BEA). Agriculture, food, and related industries collectively represent a larger share (~5.5% of GDP) when processing and downstream activity are included.
Economic Research Service
+1
Total federal receipts in FY2023 were about $4.44 trillion.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
A rough, transparent back-of-envelope: if you treated farm value added as a rough proxy for tax base, 0.8% of $4.44T ≈ $35 billion of federal receipts — i.e., ~0.8% of federal receipts. But that is a very rough proxy and likely an over- or under-estimate because: (a) much farm income is reported on individual tax returns and taxed as such, (b) some agricultural income is corporate, (c) payroll taxes (which are large) come from many sectors, and (d) many farm households have off-farm income. Bottom line: you cannot state a precise official % of federal receipts attributable to livestock producers; the best we can do is use value-added shares and explain assumptions.
Economic Research Service
+1
4) Wyoming: what portion of the state’s GDP comes from “Wyoming Stock Growers Association” (WSGA)?
You cannot assign a share of state GDP to the Wyoming Stock Growers Association itself. WSGA is a membership/trade organization (advocacy, services, etc.), not an economic industry whose output is recorded as GDP. GDP measures the value of goods and services produced; an association’s administrative spending would be a tiny sliver of GDP and is not typically singled out.
What you can measure: agriculture’s contribution to Wyoming’s economy. Several Wyoming sources put the agricultural production & processing share at roughly 2.4% of Wyoming GDP (recent state analyses/university estimates). Livestock production is the dominant component of Wyoming agriculture (estimates show ~77% of Wyoming’s farm output is livestock). So livestock production is a meaningful but not dominant share of state GDP (roughly a couple percent of total state GDP).
economic-impact-of-ag.uada.edu
+2
University of Wyoming
+2
Example numbers (all public sources):
Wyoming farm/ranch cash receipts ~ $1.9–$2.5 billion (recent years) and ag production + processing around $2.45 billion value added (2022) — compared with Wyoming total GDP of roughly $49–51 billion (state BEA/FRED series for 2022–2024). That yields ~2–3% of Wyoming GDP coming from agriculture (consistent with the 2.4% figure from the UADA analysis).
NASS
+2
FRED
+2
What I can do next (options)
Pull the most recent year-by-year USDA/FSA payment tables and produce a table of how much (dollars) each of the livestock-relevant programs paid in your year(s) of interest (e.g., 2018–2024), with source links. (This will give you a concrete annual dollar total and program breakdown.)
Produce a transparent estimate of the livestock sector’s share of federal receipts under several assumptions (strictly proportional to farm value-added; or proportional only to “agriculture, food & related industries”), showing the math and uncertainty.
Retrieve any Wyoming-specific payment totals (how much USDA/NRCS/FSA paid to Wyoming livestock producers last year) and calculate the percent of Wyoming GDP those payments represent.
If you want one of those, tell me which year(s) for the payment breakdown (or I can use the most recent full fiscal year such as FY2023–FY2024). If you prefer, I can go ahead and fetch the FY2023 program payment breakdowns now and show a table. (No problem if you want me to pick the most recent available year — I will.)
U.S. Government Accountability Office
+1
Sources cited (representative)
USDA FSA: Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), Livestock Forage Program (LFP), Emergency Livestock Relief Program pages.
Farm Service Agency
+2
Farm Service Agency
+2
GAO & USDA/ERS program analyses on farm payments and livestock assistance.
U.S. Government Accountability Office
+1
EWG analysis of livestock/seafood subsidies (multi-year totals).
EWG
USDA ERS — agriculture/food share of U.S. GDP and farm output figures.
Economic Research Service
+1
U.S. Treasury / Fiscal Service — total federal receipts FY2023.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Wyoming agricultural economic impact (U. Wyoming / UADA reports) and BEA/FRED Wyoming GDP series.
University of Wyoming
+2
economic-impact-of-ag.uada.edu
+2
wow, maybe you should contact your congressional leaders and enlighten them on how you feel about all of the above stuff.
What good would that do?
One thing you did not touch on was how much the AG industry contributes to state coffers to pay for all the services they receive. If you make a list of the tax exemptions they receive (a list that is many pages long) it becomes clear that they contribute little or nothing to the state treasury. However, they seem to be right at the front of the line crying about how overtaxed they are. Former Rep. Dick Sadler of Casper once made a list of all those exemptions, it would be wonderful if a sitting legislator would ask LSO to compile and publish it.
I miss Dick Sadler, he was so much better than what we have.
Sounds like we have already paid for meat through taxes by the time it hits the shelves. Then we have to pay for it again at check out.
Fascinating as always. Landowners , like Eshelman,who want to lock out their neighbors and countrymen are very rich oligarchs. It would win them a bit of good karma to issue permits for a trail that crosses their land but no hunting or camping allowed without express permission from them The real issue I suspect is what those Missouri hunters did once they corner crossed — killed some elk or whatever, that Eshelman believed belonged to him. Plus the “arrogance” of these poor slobs to think they could use an old custom or law to take or tred upon what he thought was his because he “bought ” it. By the way, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of corner crossing , I read,the law will apply in every state.
The stupid comments that this man continues to make matches perfectly the clueless look in the above photograph. We all are laughing but I do find it quite sad that the WSGA continues to let Mr. Manganga represent their org and give us the impression that they are a clown posse (they are). Sometimes you have to switch quarterback in the middle of the game and this should have happened to this blithering fool as soon as yesterday.
Mr. Magagna stated that he’s concerned that corner crossings might lead to some abuses. Really Jim? Your cattle and sheep have been abusing my public lands for decades and you’ve never, ever expressed any concern about those abuses. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Stockmans association and the outfitters association doesn’t want to lose the threat of, or the possibility of you being charged for inadvertently touching a blade of grass on private property while corner crossing. They’ve been threatening and using the tactics and threats of long, drawn out, court cases for people and putting fear into them because they know how much financial damage it would do to an individual and countdown people conceding to their demands. If these ranchers are so worried about people being too close to their cattle while using their public lands, they can sell it and then they don’t have to deal with it. They’re never worried when an outfitter is hunting in the middle of their herds. What a bunch of made up problems. Hicks, Jones, and Boner need to be primary. The party needs a new option of representation.
Remember, Magagna is also the same guy that wants the DEQ to look away as his sheep shit in a creek. The Wyoming Welfare Stockgrowers membership needs to nudge this guy into the twilight lest they want to continue his clueless senile and absurd leadership and be the internet laughing stock
Who drew the short straw and has to tell the Wyoming Stockgrowers that it really is the 21st century now ? The Stockgrowers no longer run the territory of Wyoming like they did back in 1889…we have electricity and indoor plumbing now, too.
This is a guy (Magagna) who thinks BassAackwards with his incorrect statements especially about (enmeshed) land. When you look at the checker board of Public and Private land on parcel maps just remember it was all Public and then sold in checkerboard patterns to private so in real life it is private land enmeshed in Public land the opposite of Magagna theory of beliefs. Maybe the stockgrower assn. shouldn’t be so rude to the hand who puts feed in livestock bellies. Maybe this Argentina deal for cheaper meat is actually a good deal.🥩🍳🇺🇸🏁🗽🏛️
“Traipsing near private property.” An event that may host 100 people on the public land surrounded by private? These are obviously statements reaching for straws. There is no cost to a landowner if someone is trespassing. The violator is responsible for any expenses. I have, at the age of 59, my father and grandfather have hunted public and private lands in Wyoming as far back as 1920. There were very few issues with people abusing their rights on where and where not to hunt when there were family owned ranches. Greedy corporate owned land has changed this completely. I believe trespassers should be prosecuted to the highest degree. I also think there needs to be a stand. Public land is for the tax paying public. If that is accessed without touching private land. There is no discussion needed.
I agree with everything you say but the hunting culture of today is very different from when you and I grew up. Today I see a lot of trash hunters who do abuse both public and private land. Fire rings, trash, open gates, random shooting, etc are common today. Hunters need to pressure the few bad apples to change their behaviors. I have no sympathy for the landowners and WSGA who want to lock us out of public land but there are responsibilities on both sides. The one good thing about the corner fence is it keeps the motorized crowd off some public land.
Incidental contact as defined versus illegal or intentional contact. I agree with most commenters, Jim Magagna is not a good representative for the Stock Growers. If everyone can just remember to be civil, this too shall pass. Respect is a two way street. I sense more comments from public land users than from private land owners, ……we all need to go along to get along.
I’d like to hear more ideas about how we make it workable and safe for the public. James Little suggested don’t allow a fence post within a certain distance of a corner post. This would work in many areas. My husband started picturing a revolving gate. Something a person could walk through but not an animal. This might work where fences already come together at a corner.
Respect cuts both ways. It appears from the words of the stockgrowers group that it isn’t about a corner, they don’t want the public near their private property and continuing to lock out the public is how they’ll do it. Respect a hunter’s right to access public lands
If you don’t like it, move. It’s public land, for the public.
From a public lands owner perspective. You know if BLM, USFS, etc. has a piece of private property surrounded they still allow the private property owner to access their land albeit it may only be foot traffic but the property owner can get a permit to put a road across public land to access their property. Just from my perspective I’ve been run off by a “landowner” on BLM lease land. I’ve seen and been on the Elk Mountain ranch ( I had friends working there) when a tax paying citizen looks at that mountain and knows that our taxes pay for it but on the other hand they also know that they will never see it in their life. It’s not right.
Might there be a solar powered corner escalator to transport those hundreds of event goers in our future?
Times change, many ideas that were appropriate for the existing conditions do not conform to current conditions. Checkerboarding land to counter the effects of land speculation around a new publiclly beneficial industry was good idea at the time, but now that all the land is settled and valuable it is obviously benefitting some, ie adjacent propery owners while burdening others, ie public land owners.BLM land is public land why shouldn’t the public have access to it? Maybe it is time to eliminate the checkerboard landscape with a land swap of BLM land for deeded land, smooth out the boundaries and make larger parcels of public land available to the real owners, the public.
The time has come for a change, to give the law abiding public access to public lands. The private owners have had their way for too long, it is time for them to move aside and do the right thing. They are all quibbling over a piece of land the size of one half of a fence post. A simple solution would be to not allow a corner post within one foot of a corner survey marker, ensuring a risk free area for all the pass without harassment.
Maybe the government land agencies should just get the welfare-dirt cheap grazing lease livestock off the public lands. Also ban the welfare outfitting. For too long the likes of Mr. Magagna monopolized public land and turn around would be fair play, along with clawing back grazing lease rates to match the private sector. How would a big fat bill due now work for ya, Magagna? Meanwhile, I’ll access public ground via corner crossing anytime I prefer and if one of Maganga’s fauxboys wants to inhibit my access and debate my action, I’m willing to take care of the situation right on the spot.
Public land hunters take note of the Senators and Representatives who voted against the introduction of this bill. Public land access in Wyoming has been controlled by ranchers and their political power for far too long. There is a complicated and long history in the backstory of how this came to be. I don’t begrudge private property rights, but strategically and purposely blocking public land access for their own use and benefit is a state’s history that needs to come to an end.
Folks, don’t forget that these Ag guys have been stealing from the American public since statehood. Maybe they should pay up?
An open letter to the Wyoming StockGrowers Assoc : Please, it’s past time you put this man to pasture. The apparent lack of cognizance to the recent Supreme Court rejection and the continued false thinking that Eshelman won and ranchers are still in control is getting sad and pathetic. You should of done it yesterday
Really, Magagna? CC is legal and it doesn’t matter if it’s a single individual, 100 or 1,000. But keep digging, Jim and you’re delusional head will eventually pop up in China where maybe Xi Jinping might have some sympathy for you.
This is delirious. Mr. Magagna, for the love of god, the sake of your family and/or to salvage what dignity you may have left after your continued disastrous stand on public access, please, please call it a day and retire. Now. PS: I say this as a rancher
The Wyoming Stockgrowers, aka welfare grabbers/ cheap public land grazers/take what doesn’t belong to them, etc., sure picked a dunce for their leader. I don’t think Magagna is cognizant enough to know that the SCOTUS pretty much laughed Eshelman’s sham appeal off the docket. Throughout the whole corner crossing ordeal, and the Cody Robert wolf abuse drama, this guy has pretty much made a fool of himself. Do yourself a favor, Jim, -retire-
Never vote for a welfare aid addicted farmer or landowner for your representatives in government. They will always vote to take your money and pulic land to fund their operation, never the good of the public. Always entitled just for existing. most of them inherited everything they have, and couldn’t manage anything without taxpayers money, so they really never have run a legitimate business in the first place. Jones, Hicks, Boner need to be primaried. They seem to be in the pocket of the outfitters association too.
Magagna is a leech
It was my understanding that Federal land grants to railroad developers (ie. UP) were granted with land plots in a checkerboard pattern to ensure the smooth flow of goods, commerce, and people to/from either side of the track without impediment as cities would inevitably grow on both sides of the railroad. This would seem precedent enough for me to “corner cross” public lands.