10th Circuit Corner Crossing Ruling: What does this mean for MT?
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,396
I’ve got no intention of being the guinea pig, but I will be corner crossing in situations where I have a definite corner pin located.
This season should be interesting I hope people are finding the pin’s if they do it. I’m going to sit back and see what happens before I do it.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
I’ve corner crossed at multiple spots. And every time i look at spots that have a corner that may/may not be crossed, i zoom in to see if it looks like it’s a common access. Only then do I invest the time to see what type of easement is provided. There’s been times where it was wide open and the only thing was one single t-post. I’ve crossed there a ton too and never had BS. In a spot where people get constant BS just on the other side! If you’re truly being as thoughtful and direct to corner cross as we say we are, and still get bs from some “patrol”, it’s GOTTA be a good spot! I’d be willing to bet the Missouri boys would agree.
It’s already been happening for years and years. A little more discrete and not with homemade ladders and being confronted by ranch hands.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Doublecluck
Well-known member
FWIW one I’ve seen elk on for the last 10 years that never had a car parked there has had a person jumping it every day I Checked this season. lol.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I don't think trying to get caught and prosecuted is going to change the law here. This is a repost of mine from another thread on this:
It will be really interesting to see if the AG in MT tries to prosecute. They dropped one a couple of years ago, because I personally think they would rather get a ruling from SCOTUS and are afraid to make definitive precedent in MT.
For as long as it is unsettled law in MT, the AG and FWP get to keep people from corner crossing out of fear of prosecution. It's actually smart on their part. Make it a risk so people still refrain from doing it, but don't create precedent.
This is why I'm an advocate of taking civil action against a landowner illegally blocking a corner under the unlawful inclosures act. As a community we should be playing offense instead of defense.
You have to have a pin to be done correctly. I think things will get interesting.
Garbage data in by the county will still be garbage data out by onX.
mevertsen
Well-known member
This is the bigger problem.
Is the County plat map correct? Or the boundaries?
I truly wonder how alot of that would get proven in court for something being off by less than a few feet.
Also, fences that don't follow property lines, they were just put in where it makes sense, all kinds of weird stuff.
I’m sure someone will claim they were using best available info they had. I’ve never seen where ignorance wins. It’s your job to know where you are at. The gps in your phone doesn’t have capabilities to be within a foot every time.
The interesting thing is, I have a friend that is a Game Warden in Montana, and he said they use OnX to check property boundaries. He said it’s the best real time data they have.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 4,938
Ignorance may never win but the same could be said for the corner post being in the wrong spot
mevertsen
Well-known member
Agreed on the first line. Best available information, but that doesn't equal ignorance.
How would a landowner or DA prove I crossed at a certain point.
Reason I asked is this scenario.
I use my phone, can't find a marker, no fence, not other information.
GPS has an error for x number of feet.
Okay, so Deputy or Game Warden or land owner try to follow my steps, according to the GPS, maybe on their own phone or GPS, but they all might have an error.
Where's the probable cause to even issue the ticket?
Then, landowner gets the corner surveyed, my physical tracks are gone, but the obly evidence they have is where my GPS is showing I went, providing they got a warrant for my data.
But that might have error built in as well.
So, let's say there is PC for a citation (which would be a stretch, IMO), unless the corner is clearly marked like in the Elk Mountain case.
Then I take it to trial. Where's the proof beyond a reasonable doubt I trespassed?
mevertsen
Well-known member
I think the main issue here is not the trespassing issue specifically, such as crossing property at a certain spot, but that the precedent is set where it was figured to be illegal before to corner crossing, and now is okay.
The burden is the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Seems to me the easier thing to do for a landowner, is mark a spot, put a couple t-posts at an angle into the ground to create a "v" for people to step through and move on with life.
The burden is the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Seems to me the easier thing to do for a landowner, is mark a spot, put a couple t-posts at an angle into the ground to create a "v" for people to step through and move on with life.
Could it maybe not help by spreading pressure out amongst previously inaccessible lands? Give the current accessible populations a break?
I’m sure you’ll snap back and say no. I’m just spitballing. I certainly don’t think it’s going to increase the number of hunters afield.
mevertsen
Well-known member
Agreed. I'm not sure how many acres would get opened up, and really, only a few sections in a township might only truly be accessible just by limits of topography and physical limitations of the hunter.
Similar threads
