Wyoming committee advances corner-crossing trespass clarification after hours of debate

The Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources interim committee voted to advance bill draft 26LSO0118 on a 7–6 roll-call after more than two hours of debate over private property rights, enforcement and the scope of a recent federal decision.

Supporters, including Representative Campbell, said the draft would clarify that a person moving from one public corner to another without causing damage should not face criminal trespass charges. "If those two are met, it is not criminal trespass," Representative Campbell said, arguing the measure would reduce prosecutions and confusion while public lands remain available for lawful use.

Opponents voiced strong concerns that the bill would expand access beyond the Tenth Circuit decision and erode private property protections. "This is something that is gonna require — I don't know how this gets resolved without it going to the Supreme Court," Representative Orf said, arguing the proposal could create large-scale access that would upset private landowners. Senator Bonar and others warned the language on "incidental" contact and an undefined threshold for "damage" would invite litigation and enforcement uncertainty.

Dan Smith, chief game warden for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, told the committee codifying corner crossing would likely increase calls to wardens and sheriffs. "We're still going to be called to come out," Smith said, because landowners will report alleged damage or trespass and officers must verify whether the ground was touched and whether a trespass occurred under Title 23.

Committee debate touched on several themes: whether the draft merely codifies a federal ruling; whether it expands access to state and local lands; the practical burden on law enforcement and wardens; and whether the policy flips the historical balance toward broader public access. Co-chair Landon said he would forward the bill to keep the issue on the legislature's radar so fellow lawmakers could continue reviewing and amending it.

A roll-call was conducted and the clerk reported "7 ayes, 6 nos, 1 excused." The committee chair directed staff to include the draft in future session discussions.

The bill draft text and committee discussion noted several open implementation questions: whether language about "without causing damage" is specific enough for enforcement; what the bill's interaction is with Title 23 trespass provisions; and how the Tenth Circuit decision should be applied to state and private land. The Game and Fish Department urged the committee to consider enforcement consequences and the potential fiscal and staffing implications if calls for investigation increase.

The committee did not adopt substantive amendments at this meeting but signaled willingness to continue refinement before the legislative session.

What’s next: The bill will be carried forward for further consideration during the legislative session and may be amended to clarify standards for "damage," the role of law enforcement in complaints, and the geographic scope of applicability.