Wyoming HB0019, Corner crossing clarification, comes from a good place. It reflects a genuine commitment to improving public access and a sincere effort to address a long-standing source of conflict between landowners and sportsmen and women. The bill’s sponsors deserve sincere gratitude and real credit for their leadership, passion, and persistence in tackling an issue that many have avoided for years. Introducing legislation on a topic as complex and sensitive as corner crossing requires courage, good faith, and a genuine commitment to improving public access while respecting private property rights. That kind of leadership matters in Wyoming. Expanding access to public lands is difficult work, and it takes thoughtful, engaged leaders to move the needle. Wyoming still has much to do in this area, and that kind of leadership matters. At the same time, HB0019 needs refinement if it is going to serve Wyoming well in the long run.
Our concern is not with the goal of clarifying corner crossing, but with ensuring that any statutory language does not unintentionally narrow public access, create new legal conflicts, or leave landowners and the public exposed to avoidable liability.
Much of the debate surrounding this bill traces back to a 2025 decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling is often portrayed as a sweeping endorsement of corner crossing in Wyoming and the other states in the 10th Circuit–Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah. In reality, it was a narrow decision based on a very specific set of facts. The court affirmed a federal district court opinion that held, “corner-crossing on foot in the checkerboard pattern of land ownership without physically contacting private land and without causing damage to private property does not constitute an unlawful trespass.”
Just as important is what the court did not say. It did not define the outer limits of lawful public access, nor did it define the range of actions that could violate the Unlawful Enclosures Act. It did not say that access is limited only to corners. It did not address situations involving trees, cliffs, water, fences, or other natural or manmade obstacles that could make crossing at corners impossible or unsafe. It did not limit access to foot traffic only. And though it did not permit touching private land to navigate difficult terrain, or touching private land near corners if corner pins are damaged or missing, it also did not expressly prohibit those things. The court simply resolved one narrow question: “whether a private landowner can prevent a person from stepping across adjoining corners of federal public land.” To this question, the court said that crossing at a corner without touching or damaging private property is not trespass. Everything else remains murky until a future court weighs in.
HB0019 attempts to codify this narrow ruling into Wyoming’s criminal trespass statutes. Whether that’s necessary warrants further discussion among legal professionals at the Attorney General’s office, County Attorney’s offices, and others throughout the state. Moving forward with this proposal without that fully vetted discussion risks unnecessarily narrowing public access beyond what federal law might otherwise allow.
If Wyoming law restricts access to federal lands more tightly than a future federal court decision does, it creates a potential for conflict. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law prevails in those situations. That means the state statute could be overridden, creating confusion rather than clarity. Seems far-fetched? That’s exactly what the 10th Circuit Court did in this case. It preempted state law that could have made momentarily travelling through private airspace a trespass.
There is, however, an important opening for state leadership. The 10th Circuit did not address access to state or local lands. That leaves room for Wyoming to act. That creates an opportunity for thoughtful Wyoming-led policy. A bill more precisely focused on access between state parcels, and crafted specifically for Wyoming’s trust land structure and landscape realities, could provide clarity where none currently exists. It is plausible that many in the public thought the 10th Circuit Court decision recognized the legality of corner crossing from state parcel to state parcel in addition to federal lands. It did not. A bill focused more carefully on state and local lands, and tailored to Wyoming’s landscape and ownership patterns, could address some of this confusion. As one might expect, there is reluctance among some to decriminalize or remove civil trespass restrictions on access to state and local lands via corner crossing because state trust lands are necessarily managed differently than federal public lands. This is another reason for additional dialogue, because a bill that does not fully address state and local lands would be incomplete.
This bill only addresses decriminalizing corner crossing, but there could still be liability issues associated with corner crossing that, given more time to vet, this bill could address. For example, discussion might be warranted around civil trespass liability, or any duty of care owed by landowners or the public regarding corner crossing. The 10th Circuit Court even partially acknowledged this gap in its opinion noting that, “...this may be an unsatisfying result for property owners within the checkerboard. It leaves open questions for landowners and the public alike, including who might be liable during a corner-crossing incident, and what duty of care each party owes the other.” This unresolved legal exposure cuts both ways, and HB0019 does not currently address it. Without addressing these civil liability and duty of care questions, the bill resolves one narrow criminal issue while leaving the most practical, real-world concerns unresolved for both landowners and the public.
For landowners, the unanswered questions could center on duty of care (in addition to general private property right concerns). If a landowner has built a fence, gate, ladder, or other structure at or near a surveyed corner, what responsibility do they bear if someone is injured while attempting to cross? What happens if a person is hurt because a corner pin is difficult to locate, obstructed, or surrounded by hazardous terrain? What if they fall off of a fence? And what if a member of the public must momentarily step onto private land to avoid a steep embankment, deep or flowing water, loose rock, or other safety hazard at the corner? In those situations, landowners may face uncertainty about potential liability for injuries that occur on or near their property.
At the same time, members of the public face their own serious legal risks. From the public perspective, there remains fear of exposure to civil or criminal trespass claims if a person deviates even slightly from the surveyed corner, whether intentionally or unintentionally. A misplaced step, an obscured monument, a fallen fence, or uneven terrain can easily result in momentary contact with private land. Under the proposed law, simply touching a fence when crossing could be enough to trigger a criminal trespass charge or civil trespass claim, even when no damage occurs, no harm was intended, no body part touched private dirt, and it was the only reasonable means of accessing the public land.
None of this is to suggest that landowner rights do not matter. They do. Privacy, livestock management, fencing, safety, and rights to exclude are legitimate concerns. Likewise, the public has a responsibility to act carefully, respectfully, and in good faith. Any lasting solution must recognize both sets of interests and reduce unnecessary legal risk for everyone involved.
And public access matters too. Wyoming’s public lands are central to our culture, economy, and identity. They are part of our shared inheritance, and important to hundreds of thousands of people across the state, and millions around the country. When legal uncertainty discourages responsible access or fuels conflict, everyone loses.
HB0019 reflects good intentions and an important recognition that corner crossing deserves legislative attention. To truly serve Wyoming, the bill should avoid unnecessarily narrowing access, focus more clearly on state and local lands, and address the real-world risks faced by both landowners and the public, especially around civil liability and duty of care.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask for the time and space to work through these outstanding legal and practical questions alongside landowners, public access advocates, and legal experts. Our goal is to help develop a more complete and carefully vetted proposal that we can bring back to the Legislature with confidence. Corner crossing is too important to rush, and with additional dialogue and drafting, Wyoming can arrive at a stronger, more durable solution.
The Wyoming Legislature now has an opportunity. Time in this budget session might be too short to answer all of the questions posed above or fill in the gaps of the current legislation. However, over the coming year, lawmakers, landowners, sportsmen and women, and other interested folks can work together to get this right.
We appreciate the sponsors for elevating this issue and creating space for this important conversation. With continued leadership, careful drafting, and good-faith dialogue, Wyoming can craft a durable solution that honors private property rights, protects public access, and reduces conflict instead of fueling it. After all, working together with civility and purpose to solve challenges is the Wyoming way.