In the May/June 2023 issue of Hunting Retailer, I outlined the landmark Corner Crossing court case in Wyoming and why it is so important to the future of hunting and, more importantly, access to our public lands for all Americans. To briefly summarize, in fall 2021, four nonresident hunters from Missouri erected a small ladder that allowed them to cross through private airspace when stepping from public land to public land over a shared public/private corner in Wyoming without setting foot on the private land itself. They were subsequently accused of trespassing on Iron Bar Ranch land near Elk Mountain; a Carbon County jury later found them innocent of the charges. However, Iron Bar Holdings LLC filed a civil lawsuit claiming the four had violated the ranch’s air space — thereby diminishing the 22,042-acre ranch’s property value — claiming damages of between $3.1-$7.75 million. The ranch was appraised at $31.31 million in 2017.
In a huge victory for both the defendants and the general public, on May 26, 2023, the District Court of Wyoming found their actions were, in fact, legal, and that crossing through the airspace where they did not touch or otherwise damage private property did not constitute trespassing. David had indeed defeated Goliath. But before we all rush out and start crossing corners throughout the West, take pause. The issue is a complicated one, and the battle is only just beginning. Because unless and until the case is appealed and heard by higher courts, there is no guarantee that corner crossing in Wyoming — or anywhere else — is explicitly legal.
The issue is contentious enough that in February, the Wyoming legislature passed Senate Bill 56, which “prohibits traveling private lands for hunting purposes.” That bill was supported by, among others, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the same group that played a large part in the successful role in the defendant’s case, both by publicizing it and raising some $140,000 for their legal defense fund. One of the organization’s members also provided pro bono legal services for the defendants.
Even in Wyoming, corner crossing is not expressly legal as this is being written in mid-summer. It appears that decisions regarding whether or not to prosecute hunters for corner crossing have pretty much been left up to the discretion of local sheriff’s offices, game wardens, and/or district attorneys. And you can be sure that with powerful rancher interests involved, in areas where those landowners are prominent members of their communities, their influences with local law enforcement and politicians will loom large. An example was the press release issued less than a week after the Wyoming verdict was handed down by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Deputy Director Dustin Temple, in which he said, “Corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana, and Montanans should continue to obtain permission from the adjoining landowners before crossing corners from one piece of public land to another. Wardens will continue to report corner crossing cases to local county attorneys to exercise their prosecutorial discretion.”
While no appeal has formally been filed as this was written, an appeal by the plaintiff is fully expected. If that appeal is filed, the ruling on it would in essence give it a precedent-setting stature, which could then be used as the basis for expanding that ruling to other states. One of the “issues within the issue” of this case is the standing of federal vs state lands. In some states, so-called “state trust lands” were set aside for specific uses, primarily the raising of revenues for public education; states may argue that they have the right to determine who and how these lands are accessed and used by the general public, both of which may differ from how federal lands may be accessed and used.
When you get lawyers involved, even something seemingly as simple as making it easier, not harder, for the general public to access and enjoy lands we all own together as citizens of the United States should be a no-brainer. For state game departments, whose primary source of revenue is the sale of hunting licenses and big game tags — and out West, in most states the majority of that revenue comes from nonresidents — you would think that they would do everything in their power to make it easier for tag holders to find and access a place to hunt on public land.
This case exposed the dirty little secret I learned when I started traveling the West as a ham-and-egg public-land deer and elk hunter 50 years ago. In many, many cases, landowners assume that adjacent public lands and their resources — including the game that resides there — are theirs by default. Then when, for example, elk herds migrate down onto the ranch’s hayfields, that same rancher demands “landowner tags” which he can then sell or barter as he chooses, essentially turning what is the people’s game into the king’s game. It’s become big business that can only be played by those with enough money to afford increasingly expensive outfitted hunts. Or they receive “depredation tags,” which allow them to kill pre-determined numbers of antlerless elk to “protect their crops” — again without allowing the public to participate.
Nobody is disputing the rights of a landowner to control access to their own property. Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our society. And if a rancher does not want to allow John Q. Public access to his land to hunt and fish, so be it. But when he wants to prevent reasonable access to adjacent public lands by saying that a person is trespassing by invading his airspace, isn’t that a little much? Does that mean that an airplane flying over that same land is also trespassing? Where does it end?
A great place to follow this case as it unfolds is the aforementioned Backcountry Hunters and Anglers website. What do you think about all this? Drop me a note at editor@grandviewoutdoors.com and let me know.
