As access advocates celebrated a court decision guaranteeing access to 3 million acres of public land in Wyoming and five other states, they asked for caution, common sense and respect when corner crossing.
Hunters, hikers and others who corner cross need to understand the entirety of the recent decision by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, parties in the dispute said this week. A voice for ranchers said cattlemen were disappointed in the ruling. Jim Magagna raised the prospect of Wyoming still imposing “conditions” on corner crossing to ensure all uses of public land are “compatible.”
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from one piece of public land to another in the checkerboard landscape of public/private ownership. Corner crossers do not set foot on the kitty-corner pieces of private land but necessarily pass through the airspace above it.
The March 18 appeals court decision affects access to 3 million acres in 10th Circuit states — Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma, according to onX, the digital mapping company that’s been a key player in the five-year legal drama.
Western ranching custom and culture treated corner crossing as a trespass; a prosecutor in Carbon County brought the practice’s legality to a head in 2022 by citing four hunters for corner crossing to hunt public land on Elk Mountain. The 10th circuit said it is illegal to block access in such cases, meaning the public can reach its checkerboard land without fear of being convicted of trespassing.
“Don’t cross unless you can find a physical survey marker, usually called a ‘pin’ or ‘monument.’”
onX
“I didn’t go cheer,” said Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. “There’s real concern,” he said, citing potential for trespassing and conflicts between hikers or hunters and herds of stock.
Buzz Hettick, co-chair of Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, saw less worry. “There’s more work in the future to educate landowners and [the public] on how we go about this in the right way,” he said. His group spearheaded the hunters’ defense in criminal and civil court cases.
16 feet
The digital mapping company onX uses GPS satellites combined with public land records to show cellphone app users their location in the field. With the app, public land users can locate property boundaries with a measured degree of accuracy.
In the Carbon County case, four Missouri hunters used the app to approach a surveyed monument at a common checkboard corner. Once they sighted it, they were able to pass over the corner without touching private land.
All of those details, and more, are important, onX said on its website. The 10th Circuit ruling relied on an 1885 law that guaranteed access where “access to public lands is otherwise restricted,” the company states.
“This ruling indicates that if there’s another public route into a parcel of public land, the corner may not offer a short cut or alternative access point,” onX cautions. The company states that it is not giving legal advice and says the particular alternative-access issue “is not clarified” by the appeals court.
Most GPS systems are accurate to only about 16 feet, but corner crossing is “a game of inches,” the company says. “You need to have absolute certainty about the location of the legal corner.
“Don’t cross unless you can find a physical survey marker, usually called a ‘pin’ or ‘monument,’” onX states. Corner monuments need to be “survey-grade.” Although almost all of the Western land boundaries in question have been surveyed, not all of the corner monuments are easy to see or locate, and some may have been removed by one force or another.
Magagna, Hettick and onX agree that fences may not be exactly on property boundaries, so hikers and hunters must be aware of that. It is a hunter’s responsibility, Hettick said, to know where she or he is.
Finally, it’s possible a local sheriff could cite a corner crosser for trespassing. Although the federal court case would likely nullify that citation, “unfortunately, that would only happen when the case got to court,” onX said.
Fence lines
“We may have to live with this,” Magagna said of the six-state decision. However, he noted, Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman, the Carbon County landowner who sued Missouri hunters Brad Cape, John Slowensky and Phillip Yeomans and Zach Smith in civil court, could ask the entire 10th Circuit Court to review the case. He could also ask the Supreme Court of the United States to take up an appeal.
“I think there’s real concern … issues,” Magagna said. “All these fence lines and corners are not correct.”
What can a hiker or hunter do, he asked, on public land where there’s a herd of cattle or sheep?
Ranchers wonder, “are there conditions I can place on [public access] to make it compatible with other uses?” he said. The court decision “opens some opportunity to us to do something different in Wyoming.”
What that “something different” might be and whether it blocks access in a way the 10th Circuit said would be illegal is uncertain. But the court appeared to conclude that any blockage, threats, intimidation, fences and Wyoming trespass laws cannot be used against corner crossers.
Right now, the Wyoming Legislature has proposed taking up the issue as a study topic before the next legislative session begins at the start of 2026. The Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee has proposed corner crossing as its fourth-priority topic.
Discussion would begin with the 2025 House Bill 99, “Access to public lands-corner crossing,” according to the proposed study topic. That measure would have made corner crossing legal under Wyoming law, but it never saw debate during the session and died.
Badass chapter
Conservationists hailed the 10th Circuit decision. Green Latinos, Western Watersheds Project, Earthjustice and Sierra Club Outdoors for All Campaign all issued statements applauding the decision.
“This case was about a multi-millionaire trying to prevent access to public lands so he could have it for himself,” Earthjustice said. The ruling “facilitates wildlife management, supports ecological research, and deepens people’s connection with the landscape,” Western Watersheds said.
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers “and our badass Wyoming Chapter” led the charge for the favorable corner-crossing decision, said Patrick Berry, president & CEO of the nationwide Backcountry Hunters and Anglers group. “BHA chapters helped raise over $200,000 for the legal defense of the hunters,” he said in a statement.
“The fundraising was a big deal,” Wyoming chapter co-chair Hettick said. MeatEater television and podcast host Steven Rinella offered his platforms for fundraising, Hettick said. Others helped, including access advocate Jeff Muratore, who wrangled attorneys for the hunters’ defense, Hettick said.
“Of all the conservation organizations out there, it was BHA and MeatEater that stepped up to the plate,” Hettick said. “It was one core group of guys willing to put themselves out there for access.”
“It was something that needed clarity,” he said. “I think it’s a good thing that [the 10th Circuit] did take their time and get it right.”
Although disagreeable, the decision that corner crossers “stay in the air” and not touch any property is far better than a ruling that would have said someone can actually set foot on private land, Magagna said. “It was rather narrow,” he said of the decision.
Seems like some common sense prevailed, why not all parties concerned Blm. Forest Service, state, ranchers, game and fish, public land users get behind a bill to survey access points and provide legal access points, routes and bounderies. I’m sure there is plenty of poaching of grazing, and farming of public lands. My guess is there would be plenty of volunteer help by public land users, seems like a win win situation except for the ranchers that want to continue to lock up public lands.
I have hunted out West for years and landowners try to keep hunters off public land. With outright lies and intimidation, they use the land for their own benefit when it has been purchased by the taxpayer.
I have nothing against the ranchers for wanting to keep the lands closed for their use. Who wouldn’t.but there is the element of fairness. The lands are federal, not private. Owned by all taxpayers. Using the lands as if they belonged to you and keeping all others out is wrong. If everyone wasn’t paying for them, even you wouldn’t have them to use. Users aren’t after your cattle or sheep. They want to hunt or hike, enjoy their lands that they have paid for. I would like to write more, but I’m tired. I won’t be here to enjoy these lands.
I think it should be a requirement of the land owners to have their property lines and corners surveyed and accurately marked. It should be the landowners responsibility to have it surveyed and marked when they buy or lease the property, and maintain it so it is clear to all passersby. If not, they shouldn’t be able to accuse a corner crosser of trespassing.
Sir, most public land has already been surveyed and properly marked.
Yes, I absolutely agree with this comment, the hinter has to know and such the landowner. Great comment.
In other contexts, easements are frequently created, when a parcel of land may be landlocked, with limited access. I’m not saying it happens all the time, but it *does frequently happen. Otherwise, as the Court noted, the land is rendered unusable, and untouchable by its owners. As a broad scale discussion, the law does not look favorably upon such a prospect…
Corner crossing is an inherent right to Americans.
For to long ranchers ie large landholders have claimed ground they don’t own, and pay a minimal fee to utilize for grazing.
The land has far more value for wildlife and recreation than ranching.
Looks like Jim Magagna is still issuing that tired old bluff charge in an attempt to dissuade the public from access their lands. The Wyoming Welfare Stockgrower Association took a swift one in the pants and if Magagna or any of his lackeys think we’re going to get intimidated by some free range roaring lion, think again. Don’t let your mouth be cashing checks that the behinds of your organization can’t handle, Magagna.
By far the best reporting on this issue has been done by Angus Thuermer.
I am perplexed at why Mr. Magagna thinks behavior on public land will be any different now than in the past. Livestock has been present throughout the west on public land during hunting seasons and corner crossers will be no different than those accessing public lands by other legal means. Unfortunately, there are some public land users and landowners who behave badly on access and trespass issues. We all must strive to prevent conflict while accessing public ground.
Word has it that checker board area landowners will still be calling G & F and wardens will respond. They may not write a ticket but will act as thuggery and harassers for the Eshelman-type crowd. Jeff, you should know as well as anyone that WY G & F sold out years ago.
Jeff. Actually all the leases of public lands have a removal clause. Generally Labor Day weekend. That saves over graze and to allow hunting. Game wardens refuse to enforce it due to good old buddy system. So maybe this will force the removal of livestock
Larry, you need to be better informed. Different grazing parcels have different removal dates, and can vary from year to year based on rangeland parameters which are set by Federal Rangeland managers. There is no “standard” removal date. and, Wyoming G & F have no authority in grazing issues on any land, public or private.
Perhaps he knows that the public will see the damage that the ‘food growers’ do to the land.
Looks as if once again, Jim Magagna is living in a different reality. There is absolutely nothing “narrow” about the 10th Court decision regarding corner crossing. Magagna along with the billionzaire Fred Eshelman took it in the pants from four wittle ole’ Missouri hunters. Give it up, robber barons
Corners should be gated to allow safe crossing by foot or vehicle if allowed the wealthy land owners should not be greedy trying to keep the public off of public land.
Should wealthy land owners be charged for federal land and game and fish management baised on access? The wealthy should be charged by the acre annually for the cost of management if hunters and fisherman are paying it all now.
1) I agree that gated or obviously marked corners (surveyed) are a good idea for all involved; landowners AND recreational users. Based on some of the other comments here, I think this may continue to be a contentious issue. “Corner creep”, so to speak, is my personal opinion prediction; I’d love to be proven wrong on that. I’m pretty sure this is what the landowner / ranching community is concerned about, with Jim Magagna as the primary spokesperson via WY Stockgrowers Assn
2) “…The wealthy should be charged by the acre annually….”
State Lands AUM (animal unit month) grazing rate for 2025 is $5.97 per AUM. On my family’s ranch near Lander for two grazing leases covering about 680 acres the combined State Lands grazing fee for 2025 was ~ $820, and I’m 100% confident no recreational users of that footprint (with no public access challenges) are paying a dime for the outstanding hunting habitat, so I think your belief that only hunters and fishermen are paying it all now is incorrect other than through WYGF license fees and ammo tax that finds its way into habitat improvement projects on specific State Lands parcels (of which WYGF is the de facto surface manager in most cases)
Same issue applies to BLM grazing permits (and USFS), but it’s a much smaller number relative to State Lands.
First step in the right direction.
Succinct, and absolutely correct.
Someone needs to remind head welfare ‘ hey government, can you spare a dime’ cowboy Magagna that it’s over, federal court has decided that corner crossing is legal. It was not, in Magagna’s words a ‘narrow’ decision. Absolutely diluted garbage but yet, these is what we expect from the Wyoming Welfare Stockgrowers. What wil be narrow is the patience of the public land users. From here on out, any threats, confrontation or harassment created by these welfare cowboys on law abiding public land users might just be met with action right there on the spot. If Magagna and his ilk are worried about their livestock, which graze for almost free, then get’em OFF the public lands. Pretty simple and there ya go, Magagna, problem solved.
Jim Magagna should urge his govt. check cashing cow kiddies to get their livestock off public land due to all of the danger created by public land users. Yep, agreed that this will immediately solve the fear from these rugged individualists LOL!
Fred Eshelman, the Feudal Lord that destroyed outdoor recreation Feudalism.
Everyone raise a glass to his elitist arrogance!
maga magagna is grasping at straws! these socialist ranchers hang there hat on multiple use but when there is another user they want to restrict them and have the public land to themselves because their livestock might be disturbed?
Meanwhile they pay a ridiculously low fee that hasn’t changed in 50 years.
Remove all the predators remove all the elk remove all the hunters for a cattle utopia.
Good reporting Angus, & comments from the people ~ public lands for the people; it’s all of ours and also one of the things that makes USA so great, it’s not the kings or the billionaires to own . It’s all of ours