With that logic it doesn't seem like the hunters are liable for the damages? The hunters aren't the ones deciding if corner-crossing is allowed.
Even the court seems faultless here. It's not re-zoning their land, it's clarifying a law that already existed. The owner had an incorrect pre-ruling valuation.
This case is especially crazy cause the landowners sued the hunters: if they hadn't sued there wouldn't have been any damages, maybe they should sue themselves!
Near as I can tell, they’re trying to get the court to agree to a specific corrupt interpretation that essentially denies the federal laws power. Which is why it has gotten this far.
It's gotten this far because it would render a large amount of public land unreachable, and outdoor-related organizations not surprisingly care quite strongly about that.
Even the court seems faultless here. It's not re-zoning their land, it's clarifying a law that already existed. The owner had an incorrect pre-ruling valuation.
This case is especially crazy cause the landowners sued the hunters: if they hadn't sued there wouldn't have been any damages, maybe they should sue themselves!