Freddie Eshelman (Elk Mtn Ranch) wants the Missouri 4 to pony up $7 MILLION

[P.T. Jeffers]

the sheet will just not end with this pharma king. Since Freddie want to "get western", maybe this should be settled in an "old west way".

Ranch owner: Corner-crossing damages could exceed $7M - WyoFile

In a disclosure statement, an attorney for Elk Mountain Ranch says four hunters diminished the value of the 22,000-acre property by between $3.1 million and $7.75 million when they passed through its airspace.

wyofile.com

 

[antlerradar]

No landowner should ever count on even land locked Public Land as an asset that you will always have control of. Looks like Fred payed 3.1 to 7.75 million too much for his ranch.

 

[grizzly]

WYGF should declare all landlocked public land to be a "sanctuary" and closed to all hunting.

It would at least take the ability of these guys to use OUR public land as their own private hunting preserve.

 

[antlerradar]

WYGF should declare all landlocked public land to be a "sanctuary" and closed to all hunting.

It would at least take the ability of these guys to use OUR public land as their own private hunting preserve.

That is an extremely dumb idea.
As a landowner I would love it.
I would never have to worry about who the neighbors let on, No more corner crossing or flying in to hunt, and everyone that asked to cross my property, I could simply say, "sorry that land is closed to hunting by order of the state. In the mean time, with a little patience I can kill every buck or bull living on the public when they jump the fence onto my property.
Montana tried this with State land about 30 years ago. It was an epic failure.

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

If I was afforded the opportunity to have a nicey-nice sit down with Fred, w/out his handlers, henchmen (the real 'scary' Steve Grende), law team and a sh!t eatin' bought/paid for Co. attorney present, I'd advise Mr. Eshelman that real cowboys don't hide behind stacks of money and lawyers and he is much better off spending his pocket change on cocaine and hookers vs. drawing the ire of the American Public Land Owners/Users

 

[hossblur]

WYGF should declare all landlocked public land to be a "sanctuary" and closed to all hunting.

It would at least take the ability of these guys to use OUR public land as their own private hunting preserve.

YUUUUUUPPPP.

NOT just Wyoming. All landlocked public should be made a sanctuary.

 

[hossblur]

That is an extremely dumb idea.
As a landowner I would love it.
I would never have to worry about who the neighbors let on, No more corner crossing or flying in to hunt, and everyone that asked to cross my property, I could simply say, "sorry that land is closed to hunting by order of the state. In the mean time, with a little patience I can kill every buck or bull living on the public when they jump the fence onto my property.
Montana tried this with State land about 30 years ago. It was an epic failure.

You'd be in the minority.

 

[hossblur]

the sheet will just not end with this pharma king. Since Freddie want to "get western", maybe this should be settled in an "old west way".

Ranch owner: Corner-crossing damages could exceed $7M - WyoFile

In a disclosure statement, an attorney for Elk Mountain Ranch says four hunters diminished the value of the 22,000-acre property by between $3.1 million and $7.75 million when they passed through its airspace.

wyofile.com

Be nice if Wyoming F&G sued the dude for the average cost of every deer, elk, etc on his ranch.

Public owns them.

His fences, diminish the price Wy can get

 

[roadrunner]

This "landowner" is a freaking moron. Goodluck collecting...

 

[hossblur]

This "landowner" is a freaking moron. Goodluck collecting...

That's not the point.

The point is to bankrupt those guys with lawyer fees.

The punishment is the process, not the law

 

[antlerradar]

You'd be in the minority.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a hunter.
Many landowners do not hunt and the ones that do or lease out the hunting would rather have no one hunting the public.
Most land locked public is not very large, All most every deer or Elk will be on the private side of the fence at some time,
When the battle to open up state land in Montana started about 30 years ago sportsman could not get state land opened up at first so they put in a clause to the effect that if sportsman could not hunt state land nether could the landowner that leased it for grazing. Landowner said ok, and almost all state land became a sanctuary. Did some landowners hunt the state illegally, probably, Did it punish landowners, very little.

I was able to get on some land locked public 30 years ago that the access was controlled by three landowners. One landowner had just that year leased to an outfitter and I was able to gain access through the other landowner. There was five nice bucks on that BLM and I shot the best one early in the season. I figured the other bucks would be safe as it was a hike beyond what most other people would be willing to do. I was wrong, the outfitter shot every one of them on the private he leased. Chances are he would have go the one I shot if I had not gotten him early in the season. I can remember him complaining about the other landowner letting too may people on to hunt.

 

[hossblur]

No. I'm looking at it from the perspective of the landowner, aka, the public. Those no tresspassing signs can go 2 ways. As can the ability to hide acreage in the green belt.

More than one way to skin a cat

 

[antlerradar]

The Wilks would be jumping for joy, no more hunters in the Durfee hills.

 

[hossblur]

So in order to appease dudes who don't like hunters, we should allow them to landlock public ground so it can't be hunted?

The homestead act ended a long time ago.

 

[antlerradar]

So in order to appease dudes who don't like hunters, we should allow them to landlock public ground so it can't be hunted?

The homestead act ended a long time ago.

Absolutely not, What I am saying is the idea that if the average Joe sportsman can not access, no one can is just shooting yourself in the foot. Would it be a frustrating for the landowner/outfitter if they could not go after the big deer one the public side of the fence? Yes it would. Most landowners however would take the trade off of not being able to hunt the isolated public if it also meant no more corner crossing, flying in and access through other landowners. Corner crossing and flying is only going to get cheaper and available large and larger segments of the hunting population and you have no control over what your neighbors do. If I was a landowner with large amounts of isolated public I would be looking to make a trade and block the public up right now. The leverage the landowner has now is only going to diminish in the years to come.

 

[Tristate]

You know they can change state law that takes land locking out of the picture.

I know a state that has that law.

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

I can tell you this, some of my Wyo Stock Grower "friends" are getting concerned - concerned about losing exclusive access to adjacent landlocked public parcels / concerned about losing exclusive outfitting on these parcels / concerned about losing their almost free grazing rights on these parcels. They're saying that Eshelman has kicked a sleeping giant and the sorta' down low monarchy that's been held on these landlocked public parcels has now surfaced and the public has taken notice, putting their unfettered "reign" in jeopardy. They're also concerned that the public is going to take a harder look at the degradation that over grazing has created on these public lands. No wonder Karen Falen-Budd wants this case tried in-state vs. on the Fed level......it's probably going to take a Wyoming kangaroo court to even give these long time cattle barons a fighting chance. In my view, the Eshelman's and Welfare BLM ranchers of the world have stepped into it and can see the end on the horizon. So Freddie, just go ahead and bump your 'lawsuit' up to $100 Million...you're still going to lose BIG

 

[roadrunner]

I can tell you this, some of my Wyo Stock Grower "friends" are getting concerned - concerned about losing exclusive access to adjacent landlocked public parcels / concerned about losing exclusive outfitting on these parcels / concerned about losing their almost free grazing rights on these parcels. They're saying that Eshelman has kicked a sleeping giant and the sorta' down low monarchy that's been held on these landlocked public parcels has now surfaced and the public has taken notice, putting their unfettered "reign" in jeopardy. They're also concerned that the public is going to take a harder look at the degradation that over grazing has created on these public lands. No wonder Karen Falen-Budd wants this case tried in-state vs. on the Fed level......it's probably going to take a Wyoming kangaroo court to even give these long time cattle barons a fighting chance. In my view, the Eshelman's and Welfare BLM ranchers of the world have stepped into it and can see the end on the horizon. So Freddie, just go ahead and bump your 'lawsuit' up to $100 Million...you're still going to lose BIG

So these "friends" of yours admit to being public resource parasites...

 

[JPickett]

Some ranchers see the issue differently. A decision that corner crossing or other ways of accessing public land is not trespassing could devalue a ranch “by the fact it’s no longer closed property — it’s open to public crossing,” said Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association


Isn’t what there stating as “de valuing” there land exactly what they say they don’t do? Using public property as if they own it? These guys are douche bags. Makes me want to bring a step ladder to Wyoming

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

So these "friends" of yours admit to being public resource parasites...

naw......they'll tell you that consistent grazing with domestic livestock emulates the ancient bison herds that bettered the ecosystem. They're half right, limited and controlled grazing can have long term benefits, but excessive stocking rates, overgrazing and reducing the streams to flat and straightened out sewage corridors has no plus sides. Aw heck, public land ranchers 'contribute' so much revenue back to the landowner, be it BLM or FS with their 'steep' monthly fee of $1.35 per cow and calf, which should cover the damage :>P . The Eshelman's along with the Wyo Stock Grower BLM Welfare bunch alike is going to fight like hell not to lose control over almost free lease rates and exclusive access and use of public lands

 

[roadrunner]

naw......they'll tell you that consistent grazing with domestic livestock emulates the ancient bison herds that bettered the ecosystem. They're half right, limited and controlled grazing can have long term benefits, but excessive stocking rates, overgrazing and reducing the streams to flat and straightened out sewage corridors has no plus sides. Aw heck, public land ranchers 'contribute' so much revenue back to the landowner, be it BLM or FS with their 'steep' monthly fee of $1.35 per cow and calf, which should cover the damage :>P . The Eshelman's along with the Wyo Stock Grower BLM Welfare bunch alike is going to fight like hell not to lose control over almost free lease rates and exclusive access and use of public lands

So, public resource (land) parasites.

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

naw......they'll tell you that consistent grazing with domestic livestock emulates the ancient bison herds that bettered the ecosystem. They're half right, limited and controlled grazing can have long term benefits, but excessive stocking rates, overgrazing and reducing the streams to flat and straightened out sewage corridors has no plus sides. Aw heck, public land ranchers 'contribute' so much revenue back to the landowner, be it BLM or FS with their 'steep' monthly fee of $1.35 per cow and calf. The Eshelman's along with the Wyo Stock Grower BLM Welfare bunch alike is going to fight like hell not to lose control over almost free lease rates and exclusive access and use of public lands

So, public resource (land) parasites.

That's like, your opinion, man. But, ya

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

Thoughts: I think Eshelman's legal eagles have determined that it's going to be Loss and the only last ditch scheme they can hatch is to intimidate the Missouri 4 with a frivolous and utterly ridiculous $7M figure. Nothing but a cheap scare tactic. and consider it a futile hail mary. As long as the "4" hold their ground, it's going to all work out in their favor. *** Judging from the Wyofile article, Eshelman has already conceded that corner crossing is not illegal and not punishable via criminal or civil charges. It's just going to be too gawd damn bad that his ranch, which I'm sure the realtor promised that the inner BLM parcels, owned by the U.S. of A., would always be Fred's and Fred's alone, will be devalued. This has nothing to do with the Missourians. I also the predict that the "4" will prevail with their harassment lawsuit. Oh, and the Wyoming Stock Growers, wherever you are out there, F U TOO!

 

[roadrunner]

That's like, your opinion, man. But, ya

That's like, a fact, really. Advantaged use at the expense of the host. In this case, the US taxpayer is the host.

 

[tracker12]

WYGF should declare all landlocked public land to be a "sanctuary" and closed to all hunting.

It would at least take the ability of these guys to use OUR public land as their own private hunting preserve.

That land does not belong to WY not sure they could do that. Either way I'm hoping this ends up opening up more property for all to use.

 

[grizzly]

That land does not belong to WY not sure they could do that. Either way I'm hoping this ends up opening up more property for all to use.

They can close certain units (including public and private property) to hunting or to limit areas to certain species or sexes of animals and some states have PLO tags or Outfitter Only tags. Therefore, I don't see any reason WYGF couldn't declare that a tag is only valid on public land that is generally accessible to the hunting public.

They don't own the land, but they own the animals regardless of whose land they're on.

 

[Gator]

Are they Republicans then Vote Dem.
LOL

 

[JPickett]

Are they Republicans then Vote Dem.
LOL

 

[jm77]

The four hunters didn't devalue the private land, they just did something that is not illegal on the books.

Whoever sold that land claiming cornered parcels were inaccessible by the public is to blame.

 

[roadrunner]

The four hunters didn't devalue the private land, they just did something that is not illegal on the books.

But only on a state level - this is a misdemeanor, not a felony the way this idiot landowner and so-called "rancher" is trying to make out.

The days of the cattle barons are over. These knuckleheads need to realize that nobody cares in the least at how rich they are - they aren't nobility...

 

[BuzzH]

The four hunters didn't devalue the private land, they just did something that is not illegal on the books.

Whoever sold that land claiming cornered parcels were inaccessible by the public is to blame.

Totally agree.

I would also think someone worth as much as Fred, with his stable full of attorneys, would have done enough research to not believe a real estate brochure.

This whole issue has been ridiculous from day one...gets more ridiculous each day.

 

[JPickett]

This should be all I need to hunt Wyoming right?

Gorilla Ladders 4.58 ft. x 2.52 ft. Aluminum Heavy-Duty Adjustable-Height PRO Slim-Fold Work Platform, 375 lbs. Load Capacity GLWP-55A-2 - The Home Depot

The all-new Gorilla Ladders Heavy-Duty Adjustable Aluminum PRO Slim-Fold Work Platform is like having 4 different work platforms in 1. Easily adjust this work platform between 4 different heights. The

www.homedepot.com

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

Can you all sense the smell of revolution in the air? The rich fly-ins and the welfare bum stock growers sure do. My sources tell me that these feudal system proponents, individuals (outfitters) who've leveraged both the people's land and resources along with all other public land sellouts sure wished that Freddie would've just let a sleeping dog lay. I predict that once the bastards are soundly defeated and the dust settles, this access issue will be known to all as "Freddie's Law" Kind of reminiscent of an end to a thriller movie where the villian inadvertently blows himself up ***

 

[jm77]

But only on a state level - this is a misdemeanor, not a felony the way this idiot landowner and so-called "rancher" is trying to make out.

Guess I don't understand this. As far as I know, there is no state or federal crime, misdemeanor or felony. The case is in civil court now.

 

[BuzzH]

I think the improvement in technology has changed things. Like any technology those that don't like it, they put up resistance.

On the heels of that is the fact that hunters of average means are the ones that have been conservation leaders for a century or so. We've brought back wildlife to very robust populations. We've also been paying for public land management for decades.

All we're asking for is fair access to that wildlife and public land via stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land...it's not an unreasonable demand. It's long overdue.

What's causing the uproar is those that have held control of what is not theirs, but OURS, are going batshit crazy. They don't like it when they can't control the peasants. They don't like it when the laws favor the majority instead of their agenda.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to greatly improve access to OUR public lands and wildlife.

I have no doubt they feel the shifting tides.

Time for average sportsmen to step up and seize their moment.

 

[roadrunner]

. Guess I don't understand this. As far as I know, there is no state or federal crime, misdemeanor or felony. The case is in civil court now.

The first pass over was the misdemeanor, simple criminal tresspass. The "rancher" wanted it to be more. It wasn't. Now, the civil case of so-called property damage is at a level so extreme, it ranks up there with felony potency for damges in excess of.

Doesn't surprise that BuzzH can't follow at all...

 

[BuzzH]

The first pass over was the misdemeanor, simple criminal tresspass. The "rancher" wanted it to be more. It wasn't. Now, the civil case of so-called property damage is at a level so extreme, it ranks up there with felony potency for damges in excess of.

Doesn't surprise that BuzzH can't follow at all...

You have no clue, but please keep posting.

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

The first pass over was the misdemeanor, simple criminal tresspass. The "rancher" wanted it to be more. It wasn't. Now, the civil case of so-called property damage is at a level so extreme, it ranks up there with felony potency for damges in excess of.

Doesn't surprise that BuzzH can't follow at all...

Road Runner, with such clueless commentary, I can only assume that you're funnin' us all. If so, please be aware that I'm silently chuckling at - no, with you

 

[Gator]

Rich people have the money Now I hope those 4 guys win and turn around and sue the pants off that guy.
Greedy SOB

 

[Themaddness]

So are property lines infinity big? Is there a rule that you cannot step within 3 feet of them? Airspace? What about those dudes who lean on the fence for a dead rest? I would assume the lines are infinity small. Seems like every rancher that I know believes they own the whole mountain, regardless of access.
I don't know much about air space. But sometimes karma wins in the end. Hope the best for those four boys.

 

[grizzly]

So are property lines infinity big? Is there a rule that you cannot step within 3 feet of them? Airspace? What about those dudes who lean on the fence for a dead rest? I would assume the lines are infinity small. Seems like every rancher that I know believes they own the whole mountain, regardless of access.
I don't know much about air space. But sometimes karma wins in the end. Hope the best for those four boys.

If my understanding of Wyoming law is correct, and I'm sure there are others here who are more schooled on it than I, then the boundary lines are infinitely small (thus intersecting at an infinitely small point) and extend up to the useable height, which is basically whatever height the landowner could build something to.

However, this does allow airlines to fly over the land or helicopters to fly over the private land and then touch down on the public side.

The interesting thing about their "airspace" argument is it would be the same as you standing on public and extending your forearm over the fence. Clearly there would be no damages to the landowner in that case, but they're trying to claim damages in the millions for access (via "airspace") to property that they concede they don't own.

 

[BuzzH]

The exact corner is infinitely small and airspace is shared by "the several owners".

One of the "several owners" is the BLM in other words the public. Shared ownership of that airspace and infinitely small corner is not exclusive to either owner.

Combined with the UIA, I think Fred is toast.

 

[grizzly]

The exact corner is infinitely small and airspace is shared by "the several owners".

One of the "several owners" is the BLM in other words the public. Shared ownership of that airspace and infinitely small corner is not exclusive to either owner.

Combined with the UIA, I think Fred is toast.

The "shared owners" verbiage is interesting. Is that in statute, code, or precedent? Just wondering what the quotations are quoting. Thx

 

[BuzzH]

The "shared owners" verbiage is interesting. Is that in statute, code, or precedent? Just wondering what the quotations are quoting. Thx

Corner-crossing judge wants ‘airspace’ language in jury instructions - WyoFile

Witnesses provide no evidence four hunters ever stepped on Elk Mountain Ranch property in a closely watched trespass case.

wyofile.com

Came out per instructions from Judge Stipe in the criminal trial.

Wyoming state law.

I didn't like it that she instructed the jury to consider airspace. But with the language regarding airspace belonging to the several owners it made the argument that no single owner controls the airspace over a corner. That is unless all 4 adjacent properties are owned by the same owner.

But in the case of IBH controlling only 2 of the 4 shared interests, the BLM the other 2...how does either claim full ownership of shared airspace?

This is common sense, nobody's property rights, airspace rights, etc. at a shared corner supercede that of the other owners.

Who would determine who's rights are most important? Under what law, rule or regulation would that judgement be based on?

 

[Themaddness]

If my understanding of Wyoming law is correct, and I'm sure there are others here who are more schooled on it than I, then the boundary lines are infinitely small (thus intersecting at an infinitely small point) and extend up to the useable height, which is basically whatever height the landowner could build something to.

However, this does allow airlines to fly over the land or helicopters to fly over the private land and then touch down on the public side.

The interesting thing about their "airspace" argument is it would be the same as you standing on public and extending your forearm over the fence. Clearly there would be no damages to the landowner in that case, but they're trying to claim damages in the millions for access (via "airspace") to property that they concede they don't own.

 

[Bluehair]

Thoughts: I think Eshelman's legal eagles have determined that it's going to be Loss and the only last ditch scheme they can hatch is to intimidate the Missouri 4 with a frivolous and utterly ridiculous $7M figure. Nothing but a cheap scare tactic. and consider it a futile hail mary. As long as the "4" hold their ground, it's going to all work out in their favor. *** Judging from the Wyofile article, Eshelman has already conceded that corner crossing is not illegal and not punishable via criminal or civil charges. It's just going to be too gawd damn bad that his ranch, which I'm sure the realtor promised that the inner BLM parcels, owned by the U.S. of A., would always be Fred's and Fred's alone, will be devalued. This has nothing to do with the Missourians. I also the predict that the "4" will prevail with their harassment lawsuit. Oh, and the Wyoming Stock Growers, wherever you are out there, F U TOO!

Sounds to me like they’re laying the groundwork for a “taking”, which would apropos for this bizarro story.

 

[Bluehair]

Road Runner, with such clueless commentary, I can only assume that you're funnin' us all. If so, please be aware that I'm silently chuckling at - no, with you

He’s not. That’s why he’s one of two people here I follow. I love hearing about the grassy knoll that follows him around.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Seems as if the issue were compelling enough, the government could force easements on the corners between checkerboarded BLM land. It's done all over to allow public access- like near beaches etc. Ya know- 20 linear feet that someone can walk through.

I'm guessing that the issue is so niche that it hasn't been considered?

 

[Gollywomper]

This guy is an idiot. These guys need to find the right attorney and counter sue him. He is the one with something to loose.

 

[HikeHunt61]

This guy is an idiot. These guys need to find the right attorney and counter sue him. He is the one with something to loose.

Lawyers cost money. I dunno their financial situation, but if rich landowner is willing to dump mega bucks against someone who isnt rich- well, gee, the american way right

Maybe they can do a gofundme thing to fight it

 

[Gollywomper]

Lawyers cost money. I dunno their financial situation, but if rich landowner is willing to dump mega bucks against someone who isnt rich- well, gee, the american way right

Maybe they can do a gofundme thing to fight it

The right lawyer will counter sue and have a strong case since it was already proven no law was broken. And the landowner has plenty of money to pay. He is claiming public use of public lands is degrading his ranch. He shouldn’t expect public ground with only private access to be enclosed in his ranch.
Who knows, time will tell. Doubt it will ever go to court.

 

[Jgill19]

I really hope this bonehead gets what he has coming to him.

 

[P.T. Jeffers]

I was talking with a very affluent real estate investor the other day about title insurance and the conversation turned to the Freddie's Folly situation. She recalled a situation where there was a very nice and expensive ocean view property home that had a vacant lot between it and the actual waterfront. Due to the "view", this home had a very princely valuation (appraisal) attached to it. The owner of the home and other neighbors tried unsuccessfully to purchase this lot, so it could ever be built on to hinder their view - Not for Sale. But, eventually, the owner of the vacant lot filed a permit to build a house and the whole neighborhood went up in arms in protest. No dice, house got built. While the adjacent property values did go down, title insurance does not cover "adjancency (sp) and "views". The lot in question was not owned by any of the neighbors, wasn't for sale and the owner had every right to use the property. No different then fast Freddie trying to stiff arm total control over the adjacent Public US of A land. The value of his deeded land on Elk Mtn Ranch may go down, but that's tough Sh!t. The title insurance doesn't care about some "appraisal" that was based off someone elses (BLM) property. The only parties to blame are Freddie himself and whatever Appraiser that gave a false premium value. The Missouri "4" are not responsible and they were found Not Guilty of Crim. Trespass. F*K off, Elk Mtn Ranch.

 

[hossblur]

I'll avoid the lawyer speak.

But I do agree with others.

We are starting to see a ground swell among outdoorsmen.

We have all seen bad grazers. We have seen the "good ole boy" network. We are aware of the corporate hunting class.

But, we've not attended to any of it, the idea being we just want to hunt, not fight.

But, that wasn't the thought on the other side. They assumed they can continue to push, continue to tip things in their favor, continue to expand their business in the backs of the public(outdoorsmen).

Seems that more of us are done trying to be nice and play well.

Be it this case, the WYOGA, Utah guides losing their bait and cams, Arizona taking cams, and many more, the tide seems to be turning, and its a good thing.

The bad thing about any association, be it livestock, or unions, is they protect the weak, bad, lazy at the expense of the good. No different than here. The livestock association KNOWS they have shitty grazers, bad land use folks among them. They also know, if checkerboard opens up, more eyes will see what's going on.

 

[DeerHunter53]

the sheet will just not end with this pharma king. Since Freddie want to "get western", maybe this should be settled in an "old west way".

Ranch owner: Corner-crossing damages could exceed $7M - WyoFile

In a disclosure statement, an attorney for Elk Mountain Ranch says four hunters diminished the value of the 22,000-acre property by between $3.1 million and $7.75 million when they passed through its airspace.

wyofile.com

I hope they lose and open it up to corner cross from this point on.
Public lands and are public lands period it belongs to everyone not just the rich land barons

 

[JPickett]

I would say corner crossing is pretty well open now. This is a pretty high profile loss. Don’t know how many other landowners out there would want to rush into the own loss

 

[Jgill19]

I agree once this becomes a common practice there will be no civil suits either. That in itself was a last ditch effort at a hail marry. Once this one is over (hope it end well for the four), I don't think we'll see many if any more of them.

 

[RookieWYhntr]

Well they will need to counter sue then for sure it will never happen again.