Article: Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute (Montana Free Press)

[TheMountainRabbit]

Federal appeals court sides with corner-crossing hunters in Wyoming dispute
A three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of four hunters facing civil trespassing charges.

Source: https://montanafreepress.org/2025/0...h-corner-crossing-hunters-in-wyoming-dispute/

I distinctly remember talking about this w/ @mike_offerman while driving back from our Younts Peak trip. Seems like a win (for now) - will be interested to see if it goes any further.

 

[Bob]

Just don't exhale till you're planted on public land.....

 

[TheMountainRabbit]

Just don't exhale till you're planted on public land.....

Currently shopping for an ultralight folding ladder.

 

[LarryBoy]

While this is obviously great news for the public and anyone who enjoys public lands, I do wonder just how efficacious this'll be. Couldn't the landowners simply build ludicrously tall spite fences at the corners of their land? Obviously most wouldn't, but the kind that would try and nail corner-crossers for trespassing definitely would.

Also this might be one of the laughably dumber arguments ever put forward in federal court:

The United Property Owners of Montana filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit arguing that an expansion of corner-crossing would burden the federal government to “monitor, protect and police millions of acres of its property” to deter and respond to poaching, littering and fires.

 

[Jorey]

While this is obviously great news for the public and anyone who enjoys public lands, I do wonder just how efficacious this'll be. Couldn't the landowners simply build ludicrously tall spite fences at the corners of their land? Obviously most wouldn't, but the kind that would try and nail corner-crossers for trespassing definitely would.

Also this might be one of the laughably dumber arguments ever put forward in federal court:

Rich people are truly the worst.

 

[OldBill]

That photo of the fence at the corner shows they are intentionally hindering access to public land. It's a question for the lawyers in how The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 is worded but it seems that there's grounds for a countersuit. At the very least the hunter's legal costs should be paid by the plaintiff. Given that a corner is just a point, technically, there is no gap and they can string as much barbed/electric fence as they want. It needs clarification and maybe the owners should be required to foot the bill for a crossing ladder.

 

[scatman]

These should do the trick.