← Legends of the Wild, A Field And Stream Production | Hunting, Fishing and the Outdoors
Legends of the Wild, A Field And Stream Production | Hunting, Fishing and the Outdoors
Episode 10 - Corner Crossing Victory: Inside the Landmark Win for Western Public Land Access
00:49:14
A major public lands ruling just changed the game for hunters and anglers across the West.
Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:04]
A
When did making plans get this complicated? It's time to streamline with WhatsApp, the secure messaging app that brings the whole group together. Use polls to settle dinner plans. Send event invites and pin messages so no one forgets. Mom, 60th and never miss a meme or milestone. All protected with end to end encryption. It's time for WhatsApp message privately with everyone.
- [00:27]
B
Learn more@WhatsApp.com this episode is brought to you by Jack Daniels. Jack Daniels and music are made for each other. They share a rhythm in the craft of making something timeless while being a part of legendary nights. From backyard jams to sold out arenas, there's a song in every toast. Please drink responsibly. Responsibility.org, jack Daniels and Old no. 7 are registered trademarks. Tennessee whiskey, 40% alcohol by volume. Jack Daniel Distillery, Lynchburg, Tennessee.
- [00:57]
C
This is Legends of the Wild presented by Field and Stream. Let's get into it. All right. Hey everybody. Welcome back to another Legends of the Wild podcast. I am super excited about today's episode because this is a topic I am super passionate about. And we have Devin OD from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers on with us today. And we are going to talk about corner crossing. You know, this is going to be slightly different than what we've done over the first nine episodes of this podcast, but early on, you know, was talking with Randy Newberg, you know, episode one, episode two, Ryan Callahan from Meteor, talking about all of the public land issues that were happening at that time and the major win that we had against the sell off of public land. So now we're going to be talking about another pretty major win when it comes to public land access, which is good for everybody who lives in this country or anybody that visits this country. So, Devin, welcome to the show. Super stoked to have you on.
- [01:58]
D
Yeah, cheers. Thanks for having me. I'm pretty excited to be here to talk about big victory.
- [02:04]
C
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So the first thing I want to do is corner crossing. It's not so much like a confusing topic, but if you haven't actually looked at the map and kind of broken down, like what, like why corner crossing is an issue. Maybe let's try to paint a picture for people so they can better understand, like, what corner crossing actually is and where that stems from. And then after that we'll talk about, like, why there's checkerboard public land in the first place. But, like, just talk about what corner crossing is and what that kind of entails.
- [02:36]
D
Yeah. So corner crossing, you know, I Think checkers is a great way to sort of frame that. When you think about the checkerboard or a checker, you know, the game. You've got these different parcels of public and private land. And so the act of corner crossing is. Is physically stepping from public land to public land from corner to corner, accessing those lands where you've got public on two corners and private on two corners. So that's what we're talking about. We're talking about accessing these public lands in the checkerboard, where across the west, you've got huge swaths of land that are in this public, private checkerboard pattern. And that's something that, you know, has. Has been a legal gray area for a while for people that they didn't really know whether or not they were allowed to cross. BHA has always believed that, you know, corner crossing is not a crime. And so that's the foundation for this case and how it got here.
- [03:35]
C
Yeah. And so this I'm trying to think of. What year was it when this case broke loose? It was hunters from Missouri who had traveled to Wyoming to hunt, and they had brought a special ladder and crossed at the corner from public to public without touching even a fraction of private land. Like, didn't even touch the fence going over.
- [03:56]
D
Yeah. And they actually did it twice, too, which a lot of people didn't realize. Right. So they went out to this area called Elk Mountain in Wyoming, and they escouted it and saw this is a great area we want to hunt. It's checkerboard. So in order to access the lands that they wanted to hunt, they realized they had to cross this corner to get into this big checkerboarded area of public land that they felt like would be a great place to hunt. They brought this ladder. They made sure that they never stepped foot on any of the private land. So they're just going over that corner. And I believe that was 20, 21 was the first time they went out there. And then they came back the next year, actually, and did it again after they had a successful hunt. The first year, they didn't bring a ladder. They just went around. But the second year, they were actually, you know, careful. They thought, hey, this is, you know, now that we've been here, we want to make sure that we're doing everything perfectly. There's a. There were two fence posts and a survey marker right there. So they knew they were crossing right at the corner. But in order, because the landowner had put up these fence posts, they couldn't, like, quite step over it. And they didn't want to have to, like, go around and touch his private property. So they actually built and brought a ladder to go right over the corner.
- [05:05]
C
There, which is pretty, I mean, pretty ingenious, you know, like, where you're like, no one can argue that you're, you know, not doing everything you can to do it the right way. And then, you know, the correct me if I'm wrong. But basically, the landowner or the ranch manager, you know, made a lot of phone calls to the both the police and the game wardens to try to get them arrested off that land.
- [05:28]
E
This episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed sponsor jobs to hire top talent fast. And even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply.
- [05:59]
F
This episode is brought to you by Nordstrom. Oh, what fun. Nordstrom has tons of gifts under $100 for all your favorite people all in one place. Like beauty and grooming sets, Ugg gifts, jewelry and toys. Need ideas? Check out gifts from Ugg, Skims, Diptyque, Free People, Stanley and more. Plus explore their amazing gift shop inside in stores and online. Free gift finding help, free shipping and order pickup make it all easy at Nordstrom.
- [06:28]
C
Which led to them being basically brought to court. And so it was the Wyoming BHA who set up a, like, legal fund to help these guys fight against this. And very proud of this. But like, my brother and I at Public Land Tees, we donated five grand that fall. When that legal fund got going, just to like, because, you know, like, Josh called me, he's like, he's like, dude, this is like everything we stand for. Like, we need to go in big on this one. I was like, totally agree. Like, let's, you know, let's make it happen. And so he, right before we're recording this, he called me. He's like, he's like, dude, I just wanted to call and like, you know, talk about this and like, how jacked I am about the fact that, like, we have been. Have been part of this fight and to see, like, where it's at today, like, it's pretty cool.
- [07:13]
D
Yeah, I think so many people feel that way, right? Like, I personally feel that way too, like, as I invested in their legal defenses. So, yeah, BHA set up a GoFundMe initially, when these four hunters were charged, they were charged with criminal and civil trespass. And this is a pharmaceutical executive who owns this large property and he lobbied to basically put a lot of pressure to have these guys cited because initially they weren't cited. And then, you know, I think after applying pressure, they were then, you know, charged in this case. And so, you know, you've got a classic case of, you know, kind of David versus Goliath where we all know how the justice system works. It oftentimes falls to the, to the one with the most money. And so it was really important. We felt that, you know, these four guys and you know, through the extension, all of us, like public land hunters got our day in court. And so that's where that, that GoFundMe came from. And then, you know, thanks to contributions like, like you guys did and meat Eater helped to elevate this and drive some, some contributions there for the fundraiser. But yeah, it's a, it's a really cool one to feel like, you know, I invested in this case that has had this massive implication for, for public land access.
- [08:33]
C
Yeah. And I feel like it was one of the first times, you know, like above and beyond, just like people making phone calls to their representatives or writing an email or sending a letter or whatever. I feel like it was, you know, it was one of those times that doesn't happen very often where you can feel like you have a vested interest in the outcome. Like the fact that There was a GoFundMe and an actual, like you could watch your money go to that GoFundMe and know that it was going to get spent on lawyers. They're going to help fight this fight on behalf of the American people. So that was, you know, I think it was an easy way for people to get fired up about it because prior to that I think it would have been 2018 ONX Maps had put out a giant, basically a maps showing all of the like inaccessible, you know, public lands that are landlocked. And so this is all part of that where it's going to open up. You know, the number, I don't know. Do you know how many acres it's going to open up now that because it's legal in not all states, this is not a 50 state win, but in the six states is there a number out there of how many acres that opened up?
- [09:35]
D
I think our estimates that to our best ability are about like three and a half million acres that are, you know, set in stone, open. You know, now that the Supreme Court has decided to, you know, not take this case. These are, these are acres that are accessible for, for the public.
- [09:52]
C
Yeah. So maybe go through like how it played out in court because you said, I mean, they were both, they were charged both civilly and criminally. So like, as that has gone through now for the last four years, I guess three years. How has that all played out? Like, it started in what court and then where does it ended up now?
- [10:10]
D
Yeah, yeah. So it started in district court, state court in Wyoming. The criminal charges were, were eventually dropped. They were, you know, acquitted of any of those charges. And then there were the civil charges that they had to, to address. You know, our, our team, our attorney, Ryan Semirad and his team, who is the attorney for the Missouri four. You know, I think they, they understood very quickly from a foundational perspective on this case that, you know, this is significant. And I think it's just worth noting that these guys didn't go out there to, to get arrested. This wasn't like civil disobedience. These were four guys that wanted to go hunting and found a great spot to do it and knew their rights and did it with intention and respect for private property. And that is why this case is so significant. Right. Because they were thoughtful and they weren't just trampling private property rights. But when this case was in a state level court, Ryan, the attorney was able to get it kind of to argue to have it transferred to federal court.
- [11:12]
C
Sure.
- [11:13]
D
And that was significant because once it's in federal court, then there's this precedent. Right. And I think that, you know, the, just to fast forward a little bit because it's really interesting context. They had argued in the Supreme Court petition for a certiori to the Supreme Court to essentially take this case. They had argued that, you know, this, this is significant precedent and it is a federal issue and you should hear it and you should take this case. When they were at that very basic level in state court, they had said that this is just a state issue, you shouldn't take it to federal court. And so that was actually part of our response was, hey, you know, you said it wasn't a federal issue when we were talking about this three years ago, and now you're saying it is a federal issue. So I think, you know, it was a good flip flop there that we were able to pin down. But the case was transferred to federal court. And as a part of that process, there was, you know, a damages portion. Right. So the, the initial damages that the landowner had claimed was somewhere in like the $70,000 range, I think. And then when it was transferred, that damages claim was elevated to 7 to 9 million dollars worth of damages. For going through the airspace. Yeah, never setting foot on his property.
- [12:29]
C
And I mean, what was the justification to go to that high of a level? Was it because it proves that the land, you know, because it's not no longer technically landlocked if you can corner cross, is it because it then would decrease the value of the ranch? Because, you know, if you buy a ranch where you have a bunch of landlocked chunks of, of public, you could technically say like, well, it's, you know, say you're buying a 1500 acre ranch, but it's basically double because you have a bunch of checkerboard public. So it would value the land more because you have a more or less a bunch of private land now that people can access it through corner crossing. Does it decrease the value of that land? And was that the, was that like the justification for elevating it or was it just like a number that was put out there?
- [13:14]
D
I think that was the, the default justification. There was, you know, the, the property valuation was decreased because of this, this action that they were allowed to access this public land. And so, I mean, that in itself is a, you know, in my opinion, like a bombshell admission that, you know, your, your valuation is built upon the, the public as being part of your land. Right, like that you're claiming that as part of your property value.
- [13:42]
C
Yeah, for sure. Which 100% in favor of property owners rights. But like, I'm also very pro public land access. And when you have, I mean, we're talking millions of acres and this is, that's just in six states. I mean, there's more states that with any luck, there will be dominoes that will fall in favor of the public land hunters. Because as we know, access is one of, you know, the largest hurdles to people who want to spend time in the outdoors. And so if we can continue to kind of build on this base now that is set by opening up, you know, many, many more millions of acres. It kind of helps spread. It helps spread all of us across that landscape a little more evenly and increases the value of everyone's experiences, I guess, on that, on that land.
- [14:28]
D
Yeah, I mean, absolutely.
- [14:30]
C
Okay, so where are we at? So this is, this podcast is going to go out tomorrow. So yesterday there was some breaking news. So where are we at as far as like the court case? Now? I know you kind of alluded to it, the fact that it was, they tried to get it to go to the Supreme Court. Where. Where did that end up?
- [14:45]
D
Yeah, so we're, you know, to pick up on our timeline here. Right. We're. We're in federal court in Wyoming. BHA filed an amicus brief. Eric Hanson, volunteer, wrote that amicus brief on behalf of the organization. I think we were the only brief to be filed at that stage. We win in district court in Wyoming. So the landowner decides to appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which then has this precedent that would be established across six different states. That case gets a little bit more media attention. There were a handful of other amicus briefs filed. BHA again filed, filed a brief on behalf of the hunters and the 10th Circuit. Took a long time. We kind of wondering what happened. Like, did they forget about this case? Did it fall off the docket? Like, what's going on here? When are we going to hear about this? And, you know, finally we get this ruling from the 10th Circuit, unanimous decision that they affirmed the decision of the lower court in Wyoming. And so now you have, you know, this, this ruling that it is, you know, legal to corner cross according to the facts of the case. Right. And the facts of the case were that they never set foot on private property. So that is significant as we move forward. Understanding, you know, what you can and can't do, it doesn't necessarily imply that if you were to step a toe on private land while corner crossing, it would be that you would immediately get sued. But is, as long as you follow the same facts of this case, you can darn well be sure that it is 100% not a crime.
- [16:23]
C
Yeah.
- [16:23]
D
And so the landowner, then, after the 10th Circuit case was, you know, did not go his way. He decided to appeal to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court. And that is where we found ourselves. The Supreme Court just kind of reviewed all of the different cases that were presented before them with, you know, the vast majority of cases not actually getting heard by the court. This one we were, from a statistical perspective, at a very low chance of the. Of the court taking it, just because oftentimes the court will, will intervene or we'll decide to take a case when there's a split between two circuits. So let's say the 9th Circuit and the 10th Circuit had different opinions. Then it goes to the Supreme Court to kind of resolve those two different splits or there's that percolation from lower courts where the issue's really been kind of like, heard back and forth and there's a lot of different opinions. This one Just went straight to the top. Right. There was no, you know, the decision was unanimous. And so all these factors weighed in for the lowering the likelihood of the case getting taken. But even still, a lot of legal experts that we spoke to kind of put this as a coin flip just on its merits and the significance that this precedent would set across the nation for what it means to be able to corner cross. And so the Supreme Court decided that they were going to decline that petition for certiory. They were going to basically say, we're not taking this case. The 10th Circuit decision stands. Corner crossing is not a crime.
- [17:47]
C
That's awesome. So had it gone, had they actually decided to hear the case, I mean, do you think it just would have been upheld? I mean, is that what the. The general thought process behind it or people that you had talked to mean? Or. I guess, how did that. How did they feel about the Supreme Court hearing it?
- [18:04]
D
It really depends on who you talk to. I think there are people that are more experts than I in sort of that Supreme Court justice inclinations, and people kind of will game that out. Right. As far as thinking, how might this person weigh in on this, and what are their interests and what's their kind of history of law and how they've decided? And so we felt good about our chances just on the merits of this case, particularly, again, because, you know, it's a case where we're just defending, you know, these four hunters are defending themselves. Right. The facts are very clear. None of that was in dispute. It was really just about an application of law, which went all the way back to kind of an old precedent called the Unlawful Enclosures act, which relates to a principle that you can't block the public access. You can't block the public from accessing public lands. And so that that precedent was upheld throughout this process, and the Supreme Court didn't feel the need to go in and overturn that. But I, you know, there was a significant risk if they had taken the case, we could have lost access to 8.3 million acres across the west if they'd ruled and flipped the 10th Circuit decision.
- [19:21]
C
Gotcha. So now, as it stands, because they denied the case, the 10th Circuit is upheld. And so what does that mean going forward? Like, how long? I mean, I guess, as far as, like, protection of this access, like, what are we looking at?
- [19:36]
D
So what we're looking at right now is you've got Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming. These are your 10th Circuit states. Within these states, doesn't matter what the legislature does. You can Legally corner cross, as long as you do not step foot on private property, if you're following the facts of this case again, you can be 100% confident that you can corner cross. And that is not going to change. The only way that could possibly ever change is if by some chance there's a 9th Circuit decision again, and I'm not an attorney, but my understanding here is that let's say there's a similar case in Montana or Oregon or Nevada. Right. So there's somewhere in the 9th where this happens all over and private landowner decides to sue some hunters. And maybe the facts of the case are a little different, maybe they're exactly the same, but this makes it its way through the ninth Circuit court. And despite that persuasive precedent in the tenth Circuit, it's not a binding legal precedent. And so the ninth can, you know, sort of look at those cases and use it to inform decisions. But it doesn't mean that they have to follow that, you know, that binding precedent.
- [20:51]
C
Sure.
- [20:51]
D
And so what we're likely, you know, what could happen is if that case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, let's say, and then the court says, oh, okay, well, we've got, you know, here In Wyoming, the 10th Circuit says this, but the 9th Circuit is now ruling the other way and that case got appealed to the Supreme Court, then possibly you could see them want to take that case. I think those odds are very unlikely that we would ever see anything like that. I think what's more likely is that we'll see state legislatures try to get involved and pass legislation in those different states and potentially in the 10th Circuit to just kind of clean up legislation or trying to put some guardrails on corner crossing.
- [21:33]
C
Well, with any luck, as state legislatures make decisions and put things to vote with any, like, we'll have people in those positions that are in favor of public land access because, you know, could definitely see states that would vote the other way, depending on who is sitting in those seats right now. And so, I mean, again, it all depends on if they would bring a bill or if, you know, somebody tried to get a bill passed. Is that something that, you know, let's take Montana, for instance. Is that something that people could be proactive about? Where it'd be like, you'd find a senator or representative or a group of representatives or senators to bring a bill in the next state legislature to try to get that cleaned up and passed. Where it'd be like, okay, this is legal. Like, we're following precedent set by these other six states. Even though that's at the federal level, we're doing this at the state level to just kind of like, follow in line with that.
- [22:25]
D
Absolutely. I mean, it's. And it's been tried, too. There's been various legislative attempts in the past. I know Nevada's had an effort. I think Montana had a bill previously. Colorado had a bill that was introduced a couple of years ago. Wyoming currently has a cleanup bill related to their criminal corner crossing trespass statute. And so, you know, there, there are definitely. I think we're. We're going to see bills that move in the legislature. And I do think it's a, you know, a proactive strategy. There's some risk there as well. Right. So we could see bills coming from sort of both sides of this issue. And so we will certainly be paying attention from a defensive standpoint, but also, you know, potentially to run legislation. It just gets a little bit tricky when you're trying to put this in statute as far as how you deal with some of the nuance of corner crossing. And so that's, you know, like I mentioned, does your toe step on private property inadvertently when you're trying to cross at the corner? What about your bird dog? What about your horse? You know, there's those types of questions that, you know, we certainly feel like can be resolved and the legislature can, can. Can tackle these types of issues. But, you know, BHA wants to obviously maintain that respect for private property rights. And at the same time, we. We want to find some reasonable resolution here so that people can access these lands and you can take your bird dog in there and if he happens to, you know, put one private land while you're walking through the corner, that you're not going to be sued for $7 million worth of damages.
- [23:54]
C
Right, Right. So I have. I have a bunch more questions, but one thing I want to do is I want to go back. So how did we end up, like, how did we end up with this much checkerboard land? Like, if you. Especially in Wyoming, like, if you look at, you know, kind of like on the north and south side of I80 as it runs across the southern edge of Wyoming, there's these giant chunks of, like, BLM and forest service stuff that's all looks like a checkerboard. So where did that, where did that all come from, like, in the history of our public lands?
- [24:26]
D
Yeah, so that's a really interesting part of our history, and it's a vestige of our kind of westward expansion when we had railroads that were Moving out here, the checkerboard, essentially as a result of this economic incentive that we gave to railroads, where we created these, you know, one mile square parcels, and we gave the railroads these different, you know, alternating parcels as a way to kind of fund their, their ability to build these railroads.
- [24:56]
C
Sure.
- [24:57]
D
And so that, that economic incentive, you know, I think the, the general thought was that these would be sold off. You know, this would be a great revenue driver for them. And in many places they were. But there's a lot of those lands that, you know, maybe weren't great. There wasn't water, there wasn't a great place to build a town, or people didn't want to homestead it or what have you. And so then you're, you're left with this, you know, these lands that I don't think the federal government ever imagined would stay in this sort of checkerboard ownership that were never sold. And so, you know, how those lands are managed has been really, really the crux of, of this conversation and the debate. And, you know, there's been various attempts to consolidate the checkerboard and to transfer lands, but that's, that's really how we got here. And you're right, if you look, you know, across various states in the west, there are huge, huge, like grid checkerboard patterns and a ton of public land that is, you know, otherwise corner locked or inaccessible if you weren't able to, to cross at those corners, you know.
- [25:57]
C
And honestly, it's kind of interesting that they would have chosen a checkerboard pattern to do this in, you know, like, rather than, like, you know, skip a couple miles. And so it'd be more like a. I don't know how you would describe it. It'd be like a invert, like a top of a castle wall kind of, you know, so if you're thinking about that, like, if, you know, if you're thinking about Mario, like, like the castle wall where you got like two blocks up, two blocks over, two blocks down, and then it would like, you know, so you'd always have access into the other things. And, but, but again, like the. How do you have the forethought, you know, when you're just working on westward expansion? How do you think about, you know, 100, 150, 200 years in the future and, and think like, well, this land will all still be, you know, sitting here like a checkerboard, you know, and kind of a pain in the ass for everybody to be dealing with. So it would have been hard at the time, but I'm Curious why they chose that pattern. I guess. I don't. I don't know what they were thinking.
- [26:49]
D
Yeah, I think. I'm not sure exactly. It'd be a good one to dive deeper into. I think it may have something to do with just, you know, those square miles as an easy way and kind of relating to how they're doing surveys or sort of.
- [27:03]
C
Sure.
- [27:03]
D
Indicating what, what the land ownership was.
- [27:05]
C
Yeah, I guess that makes sense then, you know, because then everything's broken down into sections and, you know, it can all be clearly numbered.
- [27:13]
D
Kind of how we afford to.
- [27:15]
C
All the taxes are funded and stuff. Yeah. Yep, I guess that makes sense. Another question I had was, so going forward, you know, this opens up a ton of ground. Does BHA foresee any. Not negative consequences of this? I mean, obviously it's a good thing for access. I would imagine for the next couple years, it's gonna be pretty amazing for antelope hunting, I mean, because a lot of the ground that's in checkerboard is, you know, big sage flats, you know, prime antelope habitat, mule deer habitat. Do you think there will be any, like. Do you think there'll be enough disturbance of like a bunch more people that are going to go corner, cross into, into these chunks? Like, I would imagine the hunting is going to be pretty good for a couple of years now in certain areas?
- [27:56]
D
Yeah. You have to think so, right? It's that general concept of, you know, you've got this place that has been hunted, right. It's like you have this private property that no one's hunted in a really long time, and you get the opportunity to then go there and hunt it. And I think that's. It's something you're always looking for as a hunter, Right. Oh, no one's been in here. Right. It's been untouched, it's undisturbed. The wildlife is unpressured. And so there, there probably will be some great hunting. And I think just in general, too, anytime that we can distribute pressure on public lands and anytime you've got a bunch of people that are all coming into one spot, right, that's gonna be harder for wildlife, it's gonna make the hunting worse, it's gonna put more pressure on wildlife. So if we're spreading out our impact, that that's a good thing, in, in my opinion. And yeah, it's gonna be a net positive. And I think because a lot of those areas, you know, you do have public private, that interface, and a lot of it's not fenced. I think you're gonna see also, you know, potentially, like, more wildlife that's moving around just kind of generally. Right. So hopefully that also distributes some of the movement to other parts of public lands, and it kind of helps to keep the wildlife from just being inaccessible. Right. And I think that's, you know, we see oftentimes with. With hunting pressure, you get wildlife that just moves into private property, and then. Yeah, then you have private landowners that have their own issues with wildlife damages. And so hopefully that distributes the pressure a little better.
- [29:22]
C
Yeah, for sure. Have you seen any companies in the west that have started making an ultralight corner crossing ladder? Because I feel like that's. I feel like somebody's gonna do it.
- [29:34]
D
I mean, we've definitely. We thought about doing that as like, you know, just kind of like a gag thing for our website. Right. Get your, you know, official corner crossing ladder, ultralight. You know, I think depending on where you are, ideally, you shouldn't need a ladder. And that kind of goes again into, like, the merits and the facts of the case. You know, in this particular instance, the Missouri four used a ladder because there were these two T bar stakes that were there with a chain across it. And so in order to go over there, you know, they would have had to kind of either hold that and swing around it or, you know, accidentally touch private land. You know, ultimately, now that we know the facts of this case, if you were to approach a corner like that where there is an obstruction, there's chain blocking it, or there's fence posts blocking it, that's actually an unlawful enclosure of public lands. And so I think that, you know, this is where we're likely to see some really interesting developments as far as this kind of, again, back to the proactive stance of, you know, maybe in the 9th Circuit or. Or in the 10th Circuit. How do we be proactive about this? You know, I think you can bring that to, you know, maybe an attorney or to the attorney general, and then to say, hey, here's public lands that I want to access that are being unlawfully blocked. And, you know, I don't want to have to bring a ladder here. I'd like access to the public lands. And so then, you know, our understanding, I believe, is that that enclosure would have to be removed so that you can lawfully access your public lands.
- [31:10]
C
Sure.
- [31:11]
D
That kind of just to go all the way back there, that really came about because of you had, like, the range riders and you had, you know, people that were basically claiming these big swaths of public land as their own. And Blocking off access for. For cattle grazers. You know, that's kind of where the Unlawful Enclosures act originally came from. And. And it's. It's still tried and true today. It's still relevant.
- [31:35]
C
Gotcha. So, I mean, that was another thing I was thinking about while we've been talking about this is, you know, one I would. I'm curious to see if there will. If state agencies or federal agencies will have to. I mean. Cause a lot of this stuff where there's. There's not fences, right, where you have large chunks of, you know, sagebrush flats or whatever, where there's a invisible corner that you can see on using Onx maps or, you know, whatever. Whatever marking, whatever app, GPS app you want to use. But I'm curious if, you know, in some of these places where there might be more, like, contested feelings about, you know, the public and private stuff where they want to make sure you're not setting foot on. On any sort of private. If they're going to, you know, kind of put in like a. A quasi gate, if you will, or like, at the corner, you would have a set of posts, you know, that you can walk in between and know that you're, you know, stepping from corner to corner. I'm curious to see if that, like, you know, has there been any. Any talk of that? Is that something that, you know, there could be a fun setup to help, you know, like, I feel like that's like a volunteer conservation organization's dream to like, go out and be putting in these, like, you know, corner crossings, if you will, and go out and just, you know, to help identify that way people are following the law correctly. And so we're not, you know, because the last thing we need is to have this reversed based on people abusing it and. And not actually following, you know, the facts of the case. I guess you will. Can you see that? Do you see that going forward, like, where they would start to put in, like, markings?
- [33:11]
D
I think so. I mean, and it's something actually, like, in our amicus brief that, you know, Eric Hansen, who's the attorney, who's the chair of the California chapter of bha, who wrote those briefs, whose firm actually donated time. It was really pretty cool. Significant that he was able to work on this case and spend so much time on it. We talked about BHA and organizations like BHA and our volunteer network being willing to go out and survey and to help to do these types of volunteer projects. That's what the organization's all about. And so part of the Challenge and the nuance of this decision moving forward is it, let's say you're hunting and you e. Scout an area and you're using Onx and you come up and you're pretty close to the corner, but you don't see that monument post, you don't see the survey marker. Right. There's no fence. And so as a, you know, hunter who wants to be respectful of private lands, you want to make sure that you're crossing right at the corner. But if there's no monument there, how do you know exactly where the corner is? And so I think that there's, you know, an opportunity one for just like serving those, those corners and making sure that there's clear guidance for people like, hey, this, this is the corner. This is where you cross. Right. So you're not trampling private lands while you're trying to find it. And then two, in those areas where you know, you've got, which is more common. Right. You just got a fence post.
- [34:36]
C
Yeah.
- [34:36]
D
Barbed wire fence that comes to a corner. Yeah. Maybe there's a great opportunity for conservation organizations, hunting organizations to work with private landowners to put a small, you know, modify their fence. Maybe that can be done in conjunction with all of the wildlife friendly fencing or fence modifications that we're already doing to improve for wildlife, you know, so make that whole fence line wildlife friendly. And then at the corners put in a little, little gate or a little passageway wide enough for you or a horse or a dog or whatever to get through it, Right?
- [35:10]
C
Yeah. In my mind I'm visualizing like a, you know, I'm thinking like T post, you know, fence posts or whatever. But if you did one where it like basically created a V, you know, a V down to like a, a center post and then you could pound that in. So that way you could know like, okay, this is the corner and you can step through the V. Yeah, that's.
- [35:28]
D
That'S a really interesting idea.
- [35:29]
C
And then still be able to run like wildlife friendly fence, you know, back to the normal fence or whatever. So. Well, yeah, this is, I mean, this is something that I'm certainly passionate about. You know, the fact that you now have opened up so much more access for people, I think, I mean, beyond just a net win for the American public, I mean, this is a mate. This is, this is something that should be majorly celebrated, you know, and it's, there's times like right now we're in a time where it seems like we're getting thrown curveballs left and right when it comes to public land issues. You know, whether it's the Ambler Road or the Roadless Rule or the LWCF funding the, you know, seems like every day there's a new fire that we're trying to put out and trying to protect and try to, you know, try to do something to bring it to the forefront. But the fact that, you know, this was denied by the Supreme Court and has been, you know, basically a win from Wyoming court all the way to the 10th Circuit, like this is a, this is a day to celebrate for sure.
- [36:24]
D
Yeah, it's, it's a huge one and it's one again, like going back to it. It's not, you know, it's not like one, one person, one organization or anything. It's. It's all these individuals that contributed to the legal defenses. You know, it's these four hunters that decided to, to take a risk and to stand up for their principles and to, you know, have the courage to, you know, fight this thing out in courts and not settle or do something like that. Right. I mean, I think, yeah, it is a huge victory that everybody, all the American people can, can celebrate, but it's one that, you know, is possible because of a lot of contributions from a lot of people and some of those, you know, just small scale contributions, like, hey, I care about this. We had a ton of, you know, 10, 20, 30, 50, $100 donations that added up to, you know, well over $200,000 for those legal defenses, you know, and without that, who knows where we would be?
- [37:17]
C
Yeah, I mean it, having good lawyers is expensive. And you know, and like you said, even though the, the firm, you know, as far as that, your attorney was able to donate a lot of that time. In addition to that, like, it's, it is very expensive to win cases like this. And that's, it's an unfortunate part of like how these cases go. The fact that you have to have a ton of money, but when you're going up against a, you know, a lot of money on the other side, that's what it's going to take. So again, I think, I think that was one of the coolest parts of this is like, it was a, a very communal win and people who, you know, saw this kind of pop up on the forefront. Four years ago. Yeah, I think it was four years ago. Right, something like that. Three or four years ago when that initially the GoFundMe was started. But just seeing that pop up in front of your face and say, oh, I can actually help. I think that it was an easy call to action for people because they're like, well, I go out west. I hunt Wyoming, I hunt, you know, all these different states. And, like, I want to be a part of that. So that's.
- [38:16]
D
It's.
- [38:16]
C
It was. It's been fun to watch. I mean, this is kind of a long, ongoing case. And I did. I mean, major props to BHA and Wyoming BHA for keeping people informed and updated along the entire course of this thing.
- [38:32]
D
Yeah, I mean, the Wyoming chapter did a tremendous amount. And really just, I think they were willing to take a risk. Right. On an issue that is divisive. And, you know, people are split and in terms of their opinions on how this should be handled and whether or not it was a good idea to weigh in. And I think the chapter just took a bold move and said, no, these are our public lands. We respect private property rights, but we're going to stand up for that principle. And that leap of faith turned out to continue to snowball and snowball with these different cases as it rolled from state court to federal court to the 10th Circuit. And then, you know, I think we were all wondering, you know, okay, is it going to go to the Supreme Court or is this going to be law of the land? And so I'm a little, you know, it's a little bittersweet. I think, when you ask folks now, it's like, well, how do you feel about that? I think some of us were thinking, like, let's go all the way. Let's. Let's make this law of the land across the nation once and for all. You know, let's. Let's settle this. And we felt confident in our chances there, but we're also very glad and happy to celebrate this win. And, and it just means that we'll continue to be vigilant and there's going to be a whole lot more corner crossing conversations happening, particularly in the 9th Circuit as we move forward. And even in the 10th, there's nuances with this opinion. Like we've seen in Colorado, the attorney general issued kind of an opinion or a communication with Hunter's regarding state lands, basically celebrating this when the 10th Circuit decision came out, saying, you know, hey, this is a great win for public access, for public lands. Corner crossing. By the way, you can't corner cross to state lands. And, and we've seen things like this in the past. You know, Montana's FWP a couple years ago, put out a statement kind of out of the blue, like, by the way, corner crossing is not legal and without any justification, no legal foundation for that. Just.
- [40:30]
C
Right.
- [40:31]
D
Pretty strange perspective to put out there without that foundation.
- [40:36]
C
Yeah. I can understand Colorado putting out that statement, you know, post corner Crossing win, like on the federal level. But it's like in Montana, did it stem from the fact that this was even in the courts or was it just like out of the blue, they just decided to make that statement?
- [40:54]
D
Yeah, I believe the court cases were already underway. And so I think there was some, some question about. Okay, well, what about. What about us? You know, this. It was kind of elevating in the, the general conversations from hunters about corner crossing. And so FWP just sort of said, by the way, in Montana, this is the way it is. Which, you know, we. We did not agree with. And I don't know.
- [41:15]
C
No. Yeah.
- [41:16]
D
Foundation there.
- [41:17]
C
Right. Right. Yeah. And I would. I'm curious to see if that this, like, that decision to put out a statement like that for the FWP was. Their resources are stretched thin enough as it is as far as, like, people being able to have coverage, you know, like when it comes to making sure everyone's following the laws and stuff when it comes to big game hunting. And so they're like, well, if a bunch of people start corner crossing in the state of Montana, we're going to have a bunch of phone calls that we got to go deal with, and it's going to, you know, kind of like spread us even thinner when it comes to. But as far as, like, you know, managing herds and people and, you know, know, trying to make sure everyone's doing it the right way, like, I'm wondering if it stemmed from that or if it was just like somebody decided, like, well, we have to put out a statement of some kind.
- [42:01]
D
It's a great question. I mean, certainly the agencies, you know, across the board need. Need more funding. They need more capacity. Yeah. We can't emphasize that enough, so I could understand them being, you know, resource strapped. But I also think that that's not a. Not a great justification for locking the public out of public lands. And I think there's got to be layers to that one. And in Montana, in Colorado, that question of the state lands too, to come back to Colorado, it is significant because again, I don't think there's really the case history there or a foundation of legal precedent to say that you can or can't corner cross into state lands, because I think we would be of the opinion that, you know, these two, if the state land is managed to allow for public access. So if you're legally allowed to access it. And you're going from federal land to state land, and both of those areas are open to public access. You should absolutely feel allowed to corner cross, right?
- [43:05]
C
Yeah.
- [43:05]
D
Now that is a little bit. It's not as tried and true. There's some more gray area there, but the perspective in Colorado seems to be a little bit of kind of having both sides of the biting out both sides of the apple. Right. And so, you know, hey, this corner crossing thing's great, but also, you know, we're going to try to rein it in over here. And so I think that we're likely to see more of that, you know, where we're, we're putting these guardrails on it that are like, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's not necessarily, you know, where, where we would feel like those guardrails should be.
- [43:36]
C
Yeah. And state lands are, are interesting across the board, you know, and Colorado has a pretty long history of like, allowing certain types of access onto state land, but not other types of access. You know, and they have a, there's, there's chunks where they have a whole bunch of rules about when you can be on the land and when, you know, there's all these. Seems like there's a lot of different laws when it comes to state lands out there. So. But like, you know, look at a state like Nebraska where there's school lands, they don't call it state lands, but there's school lands and those are open to public. But it's, they also lease them out to a lot of like cattle grazing or, or, you know, farming practices of any kind. And so it's up to whoever's leasing it, like they have the rights. And so most of those chunks of state land are privatized because it's, it's up to whoever's leasing it for the grazing rights or whatever. So it's. State lands are a tough one because, you know, you wish you could lump them into these decisions on the federal level, but unfortunately that's not the case. It just depends on how they're trying to manage them.
- [44:40]
D
Yeah. And that's exactly where it gets more complicated. And you have to look at these examples of like, okay, what you've got, where you have public access already allowed.
- [44:50]
C
Yeah.
- [44:50]
D
Should you be allowed to corner cross?
- [44:52]
C
Right. And I feel like that, I mean, obviously this is, you know, two people in favor of corner crossing talking about this whole thing. But in my, in my eyes, it would only make sense that like, public to public doesn't really matter if it's federal or state, if it's open to public hunting, you should be able to access it and, you know, any sort of public, you know, recreation. So I'm trying to think of, is there anything else that we. That I haven't covered on the corner crossing stuff that we should talk about because it's. It's been such a long, ongoing thing. But, man, I was so fired up to see all the social posts yesterday about this breaking news, the fact that they denied to hear it.
- [45:34]
D
Yeah, I think. I think we did a pretty good job covering it. The thing that I would maybe point to is, yes, this is a win that we need to celebrate that is just huge. Like, you know, go out and find a Corner in the 10th Circuit and do it respectfully. But enjoy your public lands. Right. Celebrate that this fall, especially if you have a tag or even, you know, just go do some bird hunting or something. Right. Like, those are. Yeah, it's a huge, huge thing to celebrate and go enjoy. And then, you know, if you don't live in the 10th Circuit.
- [46:06]
E
Right.
- [46:06]
D
Like, this is coming one way or another, whether it's in your state legislature or a court case, you know, and so would encourage people to be kind of mindful and thoughtful and understand the risk tolerance in those states and what that might mean about crossing. But mostly I would say just stay engaged because there will be a time pretty soon here where I think BHA and other organizations, we're going to flag a bill for you in the legislature that is related to corner Crossing. And it will be incumbent upon people to again show up to voice their opinion about the need to access these public lands. And, you know, this is the way our government works. Right. You're going to have influence and lobby activity on from various different stakeholders. And we, you know, we'll encourage that. The stakeholder of the American people that love public lands, that want to go hunt, fish or just bird watch, explore, whatever you want to do in those public lands. Like, it's going to be really important to. To be tuned in to the state legislatures when these things start to pop up, because I don't know if we'll see him in time for this next legislative session, you know, come early next year. But I would say with a lot of confidence, you know, in the next couple of years, we'll be busy on this front.
- [47:23]
C
Yeah.
- [47:23]
D
And so supporting support in those efforts will be significant.
- [47:26]
C
Yeah. All right, well, that's. I think that's a perfect place to end this. So anybody who's listening, be sure to sign up for the newsletters from B. BHA so you can see these state bills get flagged, be in contact with your state chapters so they can help inform you on this stuff. Yeah, it's just like it's, you know, it's kind of, it's something if you, it's, it's a never ending fight to protect all this stuff and keep it, you know, moving in the right direction. So just stay, like you said, stay vigilant, stay on top of it and, and know that there's just going to be some information that's going to come out where you're probably going to have to reach out to your representatives and try to get this going in the right direction. So, Devin, thanks so much for hopping on today and covering this whole Corner Crossing issue. Again. This will hit the, hit the waves tomorrow. So yeah, can't thank you enough.
- [48:14]
D
Cheers, man. And I'll just add that it was, it was really volunteers that did it. It was volunteers from Wyoming, BHA that made it happen. And so get involved, find your local chapter. It's, this is something that you can have a piece in. And all those volunteers, you know, I think are, are feeling pretty good about the tremendous amount of work that they put in, but they were passionate about it and they took a stand and they got a huge win. So go celebrate it.
- [48:37]
C
Absolutely. Well, thanks again. And Doug, here we have the Limu Emu in its natural habitat, helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's a company accompanied by his natural ally, Doug Limu.
- [48:57]
E
Is that guy with the binoculars watching us?
- [48:59]
C
Cut the camera. They see us.
- [49:01]
D
Only pay for what you need@libertymutual.com Liberty.
- [49:04]
C
Liberty. Liberty. Liberty Savings.
- [49:06]
D
Very unwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and affiliates. Excludes Massachusetts.
- [49:09]
A
Take the next 30 seconds to invest in yourself with Vanguard. Breathe in. Center your mind. Recognize the power you have to direct your financial future. Feel the freedom that comes with reaching your goals and building a life you love. Vanguard brings you this meditation because we invest where it matters most in you. Visit vanguard.com investinginyou to learn more. All investing is subject to risk.