New landowner threatens to lock up county road, hires G&F Commissioner

jm77 · Jun 20, 2024

This article, while filled with inaccuracies, tells about a 100 year old road that the county is fighting a new landower from blocking it off. The road accesses thousands of acres of state and BLM land and gives access to a large HMA. The land in question is a 120 acre parcel. G&F Commissioner John Masterson is revealed as the new landowners lawyer.

Natrona County Sues Ranchers Over Threat To Close Off Road

Natrona County has sued to stop a ranch family from closing off County Road 505 that leads south off Casper Mountain. Turns out, the county doesn’t…

cowboystatedaily.com

D_Hoyt · Jun 20, 2024

I’d be shocked if this didn’t qualify as an R.S. 2477 rights-of-way based on what I read in the article and the BLM managed lands being involved. I don’t know what, if anything, Wyoming and the counties of Wyoming have done to assert an R.S. 2477 claim. Utah has more than 12,000 Class B and D roads in its active lawsuit to get the courts to put these claims in public record so the BLM can’t keep closing them and failing to maintain them. These types of issues come up all the time, but rarely make the papers,

mulecreek · Jun 20, 2024

jm77 said:
This article, while filled with inaccuracies, tells about a 100 year old road that the county is fighting a new landower from blocking it off. The road accesses thousands of acres of state and BLM land and gives access to a large HMA. The land in question is a 120 acre parcel. G&F Commissioner John Masterson is revealed as the new landowners lawyer.

Natrona County Sues Ranchers Over Threat To Close Off Road

Natrona County has sued to stop a ranch family from closing off County Road 505 that leads south off Casper Mountain. Turns out, the county doesn’t…

cowboystatedaily.com

What are the inaccuracies? While the article states the county maintains the road, any idea who built the road?

jm77 · Jun 20, 2024

mulecreek said:
What are the inaccuracies? While the article states the county maintains the road, any idea who built the road?

The road was built before I was born. Called "Circle Drive Rd" it connects the Casper Mtn Road with highway 487. It was never a road exclusive to the Cheney Ranch. It accesses not only the public, but other private land in the area. It begins on the top of Casper Mtn, always has been maintained by the county and was recently redone around the area in question and now from the top of Casper Mtn down. The new owners have an excellent road to their property.

There is are no trees in the area in question for cutting firewood. The fact that the road crosses part of a 120 acre parcel and always has , does not or ever did affect the cattle operation. The abuse cited by motorized vehicles is those vehicles driving the county road. The landowner recently purchased the property earlier this year and has not been involved in a long standing cattle operation. They did buy the ranches cattle. I have run into this individual in the field during hunting season. The fact that they are hunters has no bearing on the issue, other than if they succeed in blocking the road, they will have a big advantage hunting the public ground. The idea that there was a threat to park a bulldozer on the road, blocking it, sure doesn't sound like they are looking for solutions.

mulecreek · Jun 20, 2024

jm77 said:
The road was built before I was born. Called "Circle Drive Rd" it connects the Casper Mtn Road with highway 487. It was never a road exclusive to the Cheney Ranch. It accesses not only the public, but other private land in the area. It begins on the top of Casper Mtn, always has been maintained by the county and was recently redone around the area in question and now from the top of Casper Mtn down. The new owners have an excellent road to their property.

There is are no trees in the area in question for cutting firewood. The fact that the road crosses part of a 120 acre parcel and always has , does not or ever did affect the cattle operation. The abuse cited by motorized vehicles is those vehicles driving the county road. The landowner recently purchased the property earlier this year and has not been involved in a long standing cattle operation. They did buy the ranches cattle. I have run into this individual in the field during hunting season. The fact that they are hunters has no bearing on the issue, other than if they succeed in blocking the road, they will have a big advantage hunting the public ground. The idea that there was a threat to park a bulldozer on the road, blocking it, sure doesn't sound like they are looking for solutions.

Thank you. Paints a clearer picture. No one wants to be a pariah. But, its usually an individual's actions that make them one.

Any idea what the landowner wants the county to do? Are they looking for increased trespassing enforcement? New road?

rocky2track · Jun 20, 2024

These old decades long county handshake agreements pop up about everywhere in the west. If there's not a recorded document of a right of way easement or ownership it'll be up to the courts to figure it out if the private land owners and county cannot come to a solution. Shame on the county for not knowing what easements they have or don't have in place for their publicly maintained roads.

We had a similar situation here in Sublette County where a new landowner blocked access on a maintained road to a main trailhead into the Wind River Range and a USFS guard station that had been utilized for decades. Come to find out the USFS or county never had an easement in place. It came down to the trailhead could still be accessed using a rough two-track road on USFS lands and the good road to the trailhead was shutdown and approved by the courts. So what used to be a 1/2 hr drive with horsetrailer in tow turned into a 2 hour long affair with a SxS. Hopefully the landowners and county can come to a reasonable solution for all parties, but when attorneys are firing back and forth it could take a little time. Adverse possession arguments aren't that easily resolved.

jm77 · Jun 20, 2024

mulecreek said:
Any idea what the landowner wants the county to do? Are they looking for increased trespassing enforcement? New road?

Not sure, maybe build the gate? Or possibly just agree they can block the road? The road itself is in very good shape having recently been rebuilt by the county. They are offering access for emergency vehicles which they can't deny under any circumstance. If there was a fire and/or evacuation on the mountain, no locked gate would impede that traffic.

IMO, this whole affair is to get the landowner more of a monopoly on the access to the public ground.

mulecreek · Jun 20, 2024

Nice to see the county is holding their ground and hitting back.

elkhunter81 · Jun 20, 2024

Maybe yall could hire a landowner guide to make sure you can cross private safely

JPickett · Jun 20, 2024

sounds like they are asking for eminent domain to be enforced. if it really has been "county" road for 100 years it will just be a matter of time for the state ot just take it from them. if the land owners were smart they'd just get a free fence out of the deal

nontypical · Jun 20, 2024

Super glad to see one of our G&F commissioners helping out a private landowner to the detriment of his hunting constituency. That's one job he maybe should have refused. Maybe he should go work for Fred Eshelman while he's at it. Pisses me off.

Money talks, I suppose. This guy needs to be an ex-commissioner.

jm77 · Jun 20, 2024

nontypical said:
Super glad to see one of our G&F commissioners helping out a private landowner to the detriment of his hunting constituency. That's one job he maybe should have refused. Maybe he should go work for Fred Eshelman while he's at it. Pisses me off.

Money talks, I suppose. This guy needs to be an ex-commissioner.

President of the Commission is Richard Ladwig. Time to send some emails. [email protected]

ICMDEER · Jun 21, 2024

Tough deal and too bad it happened. Lawyers will be the biggest winners. Hopefully they can settle it before it becomes a long-term issue. I have used that road often and it sure comes in handy if you are up on Casper Mountain and heading toward Medicine Bow.

I hope this serves as a warning for other counties to take a look at their easements and rights regarding roads.

I do know there used to be a statute that allowed for what is called a prescriptive easement. It was an adverse possession deal where if you used the road for 10+ years you had established an easement. The Wyoming Supreme Court overturned that statute and prescriptive easements are no longer legal here.

A good example of that is the road up to the top of Elk Mountain that Eschelman closed after he bought the ranch. That was always open to the public prior to him winning the court battle. Now there is no public access on that road. Several government and conservation groups fought that battle and lost.

Again, too bad these messes occur. The way things are going, the new landowner will be running for the legislature in 2 years. Seems like a common theme.

Best of luck Natrona folks.

jm77 · Jun 21, 2024

ICMDEER said:
Tough deal and too bad it happened. Lawyers will be the biggest winners. Hopefully they can settle it before it becomes a long-term issue. I have used that road often and it sure comes in handy if you are up on Casper Mountain and heading toward Medicine Bow.

I hope this serves as a warning for other counties to take a look at their easements and rights regarding roads.

I do know there used to be a statute that allowed for what is called a prescriptive easement. It was an adverse possession deal where if you used the road for 10+ years you had established an easement. The Wyoming Supreme Court overturned that statute and prescriptive easements are no longer legal here.

A good example of that is the road up to the top of Elk Mountain that Eschelman closed after he bought the ranch. That was always open to the public prior to him winning the court battle. Now there is no public access on that road. Several government and conservation groups fought that battle and lost.

Again, too bad these messes occur. The way things are going, the new landowner will be running for the legislature in 2 years. Seems like a common theme.

Best of luck Natrona folks.

Jim, was that road on Elk Mountain listed on the maps as a county road? And I'm pretty sure there is still a prescriptive easement in statute. It's the same as a road used by adverse possession I think.

The Commissioners are using Title 24 of state statutes to condemn the easement for the road. They are having it surveyed and I'm sure will pay the landowner by the rod for what the road covers on his land. It will be up to the new landowner to fight it in court.

ICMDEER · Jun 22, 2024

jm77 said:
Jim, was that road on Elk Mountain listed on the maps as a county road? And I'm pretty sure there is still a prescriptive easement in statute. It's the same as a road used by adverse possession I think.

The Commissioners are using Title 24 of state statutes to condemn the easement for the road. They are having it surveyed and I'm sure will pay the landowner by the rod for what the road covers on his land. It will be up to the new landowner to fight it in court.

Not sure about the road on Elk Mtn. I know it was always on maps as public.

The Commissioners can do the easement. But the prescriptive and adverse possession stuff went away.

As far as I know, the way to get access now is to petition the County Commissioners and they can either locate the easement themselves or select a committee of three to establish the easement, which must be surveyed and for which the landowner must be compensated.

We had to hire a lawyer and threaten to do that in 1999 for some property. When the other party was advised by their attorney that we were going to win, they gave up and let us have access. But it was a totally unnecessary and protracted court battle. The access we were using dated to the 1890's, but we could not get adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. That will likely be the outcome on Circle Drive as well.

jm77 · Jun 22, 2024

ICMDEER said:
Not sure about the road on Elk Mtn. I know it was always on maps as public.

The Commissioners can do the easement. But the prescriptive and adverse possession stuff went away.

As far as I know, the way to get access now is to petition the County Commissioners and they can either locate the easement themselves or select a committee of three to establish the easement, which must be surveyed and for which the landowner must be compensated.

We had to hire a lawyer and threaten to do that in 1999 for some property. When the other party was advised by their attorney that we were going to win, they gave up and let us have access. But it was a totally unnecessary and protracted court battle. The access we were using dated to the 1890's, but we could not get adverse possession or a prescriptive easement. That will likely be the outcome on Circle Drive as well.

Anything's possible in the courts.

Checkout current statute 24-1-101. Also, in current disputes over access to private land, the County Commissioners are no longer the arbiters, it's the court now that handles those cases and no private landowner can be prevented from accessing their property.

I'm more than aware of the track record of maintaining access to public land and it's not good. Title 24 gives the County Commission a good start. Closing CR505 would cause access to Casper Mountain to be one road up the north side, considerable hardship for many private landowners and increased safety hazard for those traveling the mountain during construction months. Good thing the County has it's own lawyers. They will need them.

ICMDEER · Jun 23, 2024

Good intel.

I don't think the Commissioners were ever arbiters. There's a legal process through which the Commission can establish access to properties for which landowners do not have legal access. The Commission appoints a three-person panel (for which there are specific qualifications) and that panel establishes the most appropriate route for the easement/access. An engineer surveys the access route and defines the easement. The total land area within the easement is determined. Then the landowner who is requesting the access is required to pay for the costs of the panel, engineer and easement, based upon a calculated fair-market value.

I've discussed this recently with friends in the real estate business and from all I know, this is still the preferred process for establishing an easement.

In the case of Circle Drive, there's likely already be legal access or an easement to the properties. It just happens to be 30-40 miles around the mountain. So I'd say this us a question of a different sort and that's why it is in the courts. But from all I know, the county "holds the cards" necessary to establish the road. They'll just have to prove need and compensate the owner for the easement.

Again, too bad this wasn't done decades ago. That road is not only handy, but it is necessary.

jm77 · Jun 23, 2024

ICMDEER said:
Good intel.

I don't think the Commissioners were ever arbiters. There's a legal process through which the Commission can establish access to properties for which landowners do not have legal access. The Commission appoints a three-person panel (for which there are specific qualifications) and that panel establishes the most appropriate route for the easement/access. An engineer surveys the access route and defines the easement. The total land area within the easement is determined. Then the landowner who is requesting the access is required to pay for the costs of the panel, engineer and easement, based upon a calculated fair-market value.

I've discussed this recently with friends in the real estate business and from all I know, this is still the preferred process for establishing an easement.

You and your realtor friends can be brought up to date with the change in statute from 2019 by reading Title 24 in the Wyoming statutes 24-9-101. No longer does the County Commission deal with private land access. Please check it out. The court does it now.

This reminds of how long it took wardens to figure out there was a new regulation on scouting with aircraft. @BuzzH

BuzzH · Jun 23, 2024

jm77 said:
You and your realtor friends can be brought up to date with the change in statute from 2019 by reading Title 24 in the Wyoming statutes 24-9-101. No longer does the County Commission deal with private land access. Please check it out. The court does it now.

This reminds of how long it took wardens to figure out there was a new regulation on scouting with aircraft. @BuzzH

Yep, things change and it's strange those that should know don't get the word.

ICMDEER · Jun 24, 2024

I stand corrected. It was indeed changed. The 2010 statute stipulated the Commissioners. It's now a court deal. I have to assume the Commissioners wanted out as I looked through the list of sponsors of the new legislation.

I'm curious...but I have to assume Natrona County will bear the cost of the court issues on this. And as I stated earlier, this situation is different than what we're discussing in the changed statute, because there is access. That quoted statue is only in cases where there is no legal access. In this case, there';s legal access, it is just along way around.

It will be interesting to see this unfold.

jm77 · Jun 24, 2024

ICMDEER said:
I stand corrected. It was indeed changed. The 2010 statute stipulated the Commissioners. It's now a court deal. I have to assume the Commissioners wanted out as I looked through the list of sponsors of the new legislation.

I'm curious...but I have to assume Natrona County will bear the cost of the court issues on this. And as I stated earlier, this situation is different than what we're discussing in the changed statute, because there is access. That quoted statue is only in cases where there is no legal access. In this case, there';s legal access, it is just along way around.

It will be interesting to see this unfold.

I hope the court, if the Commissioners actions to secure 505 using 24-1-101 are challenged, look at the facts as they exist. While there is access on the north side, bringing any kind of large truck traffic up and down is far more dangerous to regular traffic. Some of the switchback turns are hairpin to say the least. Options in a disaster, like a fire, would be cut in half even with the offer by the landowner to keep the road available. He's also threatened to park a bulldozer on it. The road has been listed as a county road for almost a century, built and maintained by county taxes and that weathered the previous owner, who I was told, admitted he couldn't shut it down. There are also newpaper stories of the origin of the road in the 1930s.

I guess we will see...

hossblur · Jun 25, 2024

Sad in these cases(Heaton in Utah), and now here, we find out what we suspect. Many of those in charge of OUR wildlife, have other motivations.

Over under on part of this dudes "salary" including hunting rights in newly "privatized" property?