Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning said she directed her state offices to “implement” corner crossing, the Billings Gazette reported Thursday, even though a high-profile Wyoming dispute over the act is headed for appeals court.
On Friday, the BLM walked it back.
“The BLM is reviewing the court’s decision and has not issued any new guidance regarding corner crossing,” the agency’s press secretary said in an email to WyoFile.
The about-face leaves the legality of corner crossing in limbo, especially on the nearly 6 million acres of “corner-locked” land that the mapping app OnX has determined is managed by the BLM.
Corner crossing is the act of stepping from one parcel of public property kitty-corner to another without touching adjacent private land. It’s theoretically the only practical way to access millions of acres of public land in the West where the land ownership occurs in a checkerboard pattern of alternating public and private property.
That’s the case for 2.44 million acres of Wyoming land, including some sections on the slopes of Elk Mountain. There, Missouri hunters Bradly Cape, Zach Smith and Phillip Yeomans unwittingly put corner-crossing’s legality to the test in 2020 and ‘21 when they stepped through the airspace above pharmaceutical giant Fred Eshelman’s 22,045-acre Carbon County ranch without actually touching it.
Criminal charges against the three Missourians didn’t stick, and they prevailed in a civil case in the U.S. District Court of Wyoming. An appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, awaits.
In an interview with the Billings Gazette, Stone-Manning suggested she’d issued a corner-crossing directive ahead of the appeals court’s outcome.
“Our solicitors think it’s pretty clear,” she said. “We’re taking that ruling quite seriously and making sure that our state directors are implementing it.”
Casper attorney Ryan Semerad, who represented the Missouri hunters, told WyoFile on Thursday that he was “happy to hear” BLM was recognizing the district court’s ruling, but admitted there were still legal ambiguities.
“Until we get a declaration from the 10th Circuit yay or nay, we’re still going to do a little bit of head scratching,” Semerad said. “We don’t have a definitive answer. We’re waiting to hear if it holds up.”
Semerad speculated that Eshelman might have seen the writing on the wall when he requested earlier this month for a judge to stall the decision about corner crossing’s legality ahead of the appeals court verdict.
“I do believe that the stay is, in effect, conceding that Judge Skavdahl’s ruling required implementation like this,” he said. “That’s just me reading the tea leaves.”
A BLM-Wyoming official told WyoFile that changing policy to explicitly legalize corner crossing won’t be the flip of a switch.
“If this holds up under appeal and becomes the law of the land, there has to be time so we can work with private landowners,” said Brad Purdy, the state office’s deputy state director for communications. “This will be a change.”
Purdy urged public land users to exercise great caution if they’re thinking about corner crossing. He said he wouldn’t personally do it at this time.
“We could easily see some public safety issues here, ‘Get off my property’-type thing,” he said. “I have a GPS, I’m an old Marine and I can navigate with a map and a compass, but for right now I’ll stick to my normal haunts on public land.”
I’ve been reading through all the comments, and I can’t understand why this land owner thought any harm had been done to his land, other than he doesn’t want anyone infringing on what has become his oasis. Sad to think that BLM land is Federal Land, we all pay for it. The BLM should take the action of clarify that because it IS Federal land, and able to be used by the Public, any private land owner had NO say over whether people have the right to do corner crossing. Also should not be able to be land locked in, there would be an easement. Here in MO, the land around our lakes is owned by the Core of Engineers, so anyone can have access to the lakes. So BLM should provide the same since it is a public land. Also if the private land owner is trying to keep others out, and he himself is using the land, then he should have to have some judgement against him, and not just paying a fine, because obviously he has a lot of money so it wouldn’t be any hardship for him.
How can you call it public land, if the public cannot get to their land? Can a landowner sell land that has no access?
“Land” is stable, visible, touchable, and measurable; what about “airspace”? Not so much? If contiguous parcels of public land contained within the boundaries of private land can be accurately measured and mapped, stepping from one public parcel (of land) to another identical parcel should not constitute trespassing. Even in this era of hyper-politics and legalism, common sense should have some influence!
The actual Federal Law as to this does not address “airspace at all.” Federal Aviation Administration rules regard all airspace as public in order to facilitate air rescue and commercial airlines rights to pass. Those rules do apply in Wyoming, so this whole dispute is about greed, not about law.
Why can’t BLM do an eminent domain for, say, 3 feet of corner land on each side? That gives a 6 foot wide passage through, and that should be plenty. It shouldn’t cost much for 36 square feet of land in the middle of nowhere.
There is an easy access solution to landlocked BLM land. While the main principle is that BLM Land is open to everyone, it is not always the case. It is within the purview of BLM to restrict or completely close off access if there is a reason to do so. All that needs to happen is a blanket policy that BLM land that cannot be accessed by anyone is automatically off limits to everyone. This would make it the surrounding landowners problem to solve access to their landlocked BLM land. If they don’t, they can’t be on it either, and nor can their cattle.
As long as it didn’t infringe on any setbacks, the private land owners could simply erect a fence or place some other obstruction or near the corner preventing access.
How is public land being used by private land owners and not by the public .it belongs to all of the people
I’m not a lawyer nor do I want to be, I merely pose a question as a farmers Son. The constitution provides verbiage to the effect, if a land owner has land unobtainable directly connected to his that the adjacent property owner would be forced to provide what we always called and easement of right of way. Just as the Railroad and State and Federal highways do. They even go a step further they can condem it and force change of ownership.
Examples a river cutting through a section, or a cliff that makes it cost prohibitive in making the two sections usable by its owner.
I raise the issue from a common sense approach, that doesn’t make a bunch of lawyers richer, and tie up our legal system.
I have been a land owner and as far as I’m concerned the air above the ground is not owned by anyone it would be like saying a plane can’t fly over my land so corner crossing should be leagle… As long as you cross over the fence and do t walk on the private land there should be no problem… It was a bad idea that the land was sold to private land owners in a way that public land is land locked…. Some land owners buy spots around public land just so they can land lock it so they can have the land and use it for themselves for free at the taxpayers expense…this needs to stop all public land should have access to it and land owners that try to keep people out should be fined and lose there land and make it public land… Land owners don’t have the right to block public land ever…thank you hope this will be printed this needs to be seen
This is because hunters disrespect private property, trespassing littering and shooting in all directions. But the only reason the landowners thought they could win in this case is because they are rich pharmaceutical giants. In SD you can’t legally prohibit someone from accessing their land, whether that be landlocked private land or public land. In addition there probably would have been a section line to use for access to this property.
A BLM-Wyoming official told WyoFile that changing policy to explicitly legalize corner crossing won’t be the flip of a switch.
“If this holds up under appeal and becomes the law of the land, there has to be time so we can work with private landowners,”
I wonder if time consuming bureau wide Resource Management Plan Amendments and EISs will be required to implement a changed policy?
I’m not sure that this issue will stop at the 10th circuit appeals court because when you have the kinda money Eisherman has when he loses at the appeals court level he will appeal it to the US Supreme Court. Considering the make up of today’s Supreme Court it is very concerning.
David V. is spot on. It’s no different than city dwellers that have used a vacant lot next door for years assuming they have exclusive use.
One issue to address with this is liability. There needs to be privacy protections of the private land owner. Also, liability issues needs to be addressed if party A gets injured while corner-crossing.
What is the matter with these property owners ? Why do they care? How does this act harm anyone including them?
Why do they care if anyone walks on their land either? What has happened to our country. I was out west 50 years ago. I do not remember this problem at all. What is going on ?
Public is public…. period! If you don’t set foot on private, of coarse your NOT trespassing! Ranchers think they own it all…. and they don’t! Here we come! Like it or not
If it’s public land I’m crossing regardless what the court decides! My experience with some rancher’s is that they feel that our public lands adjacent to their property is for only them to use.
No matter whose land, public or private, there should be ‘right of ways’ established to enter it. This ‘land locked with no access’ makes no sense. I get that it doesn’t need to be a ‘2 lane, paved road’, but there has to be a ‘passable pathway’. I have ‘land locked’ ground in KS. There is a determined right-of-way along the edge of the family’s parcel just before mine. Sheesh. At a minimum BLM needs to put in a walking bridge over the corners the these thousands of PUBLIC acres can be accessible by THE PUBLIC. Is it really that hard?
David Vickery is correct. This is an issue about personal control and gain of public property, except that it’s definitely not just about outfitting. We all need to respect private property, but at the same time private land owners need to respect the public and the public cannot be prohibited from accessing `their` property in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, for supporters of blocking corner crossing (remember to vote out the Wyoming legislators that supported the failed Bill that attempted make it illegal for the public to access their land) the land owner (including and through his manager) in this case was very disrespectful to the public and their rights. There ought to be criminal accountability for the harrassment of hunters and likely would’ve been if it was an average citizen rather than a billionaire pretending to be a conservative.
We should not be locked out of our public lands , period. This is a scam private land owners have done all over the West. It’s not just corner crossing, huge parcels of land get bought up with public land sections in the middle of it and lock us out.
I 100% side with the “public” use of “public land”. In other words public hunters and outdoor enthusiast should have free access to BLM land whether it’s landlocked or not.
Hey, 50 percent of that airspace over a corner is public. Landowner only has the other half. Easy to say I just stepped over the corner in public owned airspace.
This whole thing is beyond ridiculous. The issue is that ranchers want to have exclusive use of land that does not belong to them. Then they can contract with outfitters for big $ and reap benefits from public land while keeping the average hunter out.
Mr Vickery,
You hit the proverbial nail on the head…or in this case, the corner post
We pay taxes for that land at a national Federal level. It doesn’t belong to state jurisdiction. Land should be tags drawn to all Americans by draw period due to Federal tax money paid. Use Eminent Domain and make 50ft wide paths between and easements on all sides for access. Ranchers can still collect there welfare checks from government.
That’s exactly right but the land owners land stops where the air above it starts they don’t own the air just the ground and as long as your foot or any part of your body don’t touch the ground there is no trespassing happening… The land owners are steeling our public land and getting full use of it I say this needs to STOP
And I believe you have summarized the controversy in a nutshell. Business interests want free stuff to make a profit. Without knowing the politics of the judge, I am surprised public interests were upheld over business since that is not always the case. Public interests should be ascendant, IMO.
Here in Oregon THAT is exactly what has been taking place for many years, along with private landowners blocking “PUBLIC” driveway access onto these lands and being upheld by local judges