Posted on 03/19/2025 5:58:49 PM PDT by steel_resolve
Hunters and their allies secured a significant public lands victory this week after years of fighting for access to a remote plot of federal land surrounded by a pharmaceutical executive’s private retreat.
good for this ruling!
Hope lots of people use the public lands!
Uh huh.
They were trying for defacto ownership, which would have become real ownership through having it stand for years.
I’m glad they lost.
“...pharmaceutical executive’s private retreat.”
And we know who paid for that, right?
If they insist on a right to no easement for a road to access the national forest, the land owner should also be strictly forbidden from entering that forest without a difficult permit, and no hunting for him.
Screw that greedy a-hole.
That checkerboard layout is fraught with trouble.
It needs to be straightened out.
For any FReepers who haven’t looked at the ruling, this is not an unwarranted “taking of land”. Large section of land surrounding a public (state of Wyoming) plot have been purchased, with any access to the public land required to be across at least a tiny corner of the private land. This is a continuance of the right-of-way tradition, where buying up land around a plot (of whatever size) cannot be used as a mechanism to deny access to that plot.
I would hope, and I assume, that the routes into the public plot are on established routes, whether across corners of the private land, or through their centers, via established public routs.
Four hunters built a wishing gate type of ladder whose legs only contacted BLM lands on each corresponding side of the corner post. IBH and game wardens did not like that and criminal trespassed the four hunters.
*A wishing gate is just a A-frame ladder crossing a fence.
Linked story said that his IBH ranch hands chased down the four hunters in a ranch truck on the BLM land in question.
To me, that means the IBH ranch had a gate to enter the BLM land in question. Could be a gap gate or a swinging gate.
Good job by the attorney. Then he mucks up his victory speech by saying
“the heart of this case is that an extremely wealthy, private landowner in Wyoming is essentially trying to appropriate public land for himself.”
Doesn’t matter if the landowner was rich or poor. The point is you cannot landlocked public lands no matter who you are.
That’s fine... but the State should forbid entry into that state land whether they put in a gate or not. The should build a permanent welded pipe closure 6 inches inside any gate they find that the landowner built for access to the public land. Also legally close any state road that landowner gate would have lead onto.
If the public cannot use public land, the landowner should be denied access to that same land.
It would be easy to legally deny the ranch access to that state land. The landowner installing a gate makes no difference. If I live next door to an airport, or some neighbor. I can cut a gate in the fence all I want. But that doesn’t mean I get free access to that parcel next door.
The State needs to pressure this prick and his Yellowstone wannabe ranch hands.
He didn’t much it up. That is exactly the issue. It isn’t middle class or lower buying 4 sections of land to gain sole control of one section in the center. That is 2560 acres... that is wealthy trying to appropriate land for himself.
He was accurate.
While we cheer the downfall of the land owner, consider the cases where the Federal Government has acquired land subsequently isolating/land locking private property. Of course, the Government does not grant access to the private property rendering it useless and God help the land owner who would force access to their property.
“Doesn’t matter if the landowner was rich or poor. The point is you cannot landlocked public lands no matter who you are.”
Maybe you can find someone who buys 4 home lots that surround a city park somewhere and now claims the kiddos cannot visit the playground anymore....
But in Wyoming, this is a game played by very wealthy people, buying enormous parcels of land to landlock and close off some very cool (but public) land, a mountain, or fishing river.
Not a game for anyone but the wealthy, so yeah, they need to be made to understand.
Where has that happened, that the government locked in a landowner and denied him access?
Also, this welfare landowner did not suffer any loss or downfall. He was merely denied the ability to declare himself the sole administrator of the State of Wyoming land, Elk Mountain, by purchasing the land surrounding it.
How is that his downfall? He still owns his land, and can likely still visit Elk Mountain just like anyone else.
Or crossed out over.
In Texas, if you did not build/pay for the fence it is not yours to “cut a gate” unless you have agreement with the other property owner.
Good luck with “cut a gate” if federal airport property. It was not your fence.
The main start of legal issue of the story were the entities butt hurt over the wishing gate. The ranch stated that it owned the airspace that the wishing gate crossed over at the corner and the game wardens agreed for criminal trespass.
I am also glad.
It will be appealed since a lot of “public” lands around the US have no access except through private land holders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.