BLM Directed to Implement Corner Crossing

[BuzzH]

This is the public lands thread, about public land issues statewide, and comparing WY to MT and other states that are not in the 10th circuit is worthwhile, so people can understand the issues more broadly. Specifically because it has both federal and state implications.

And that other thread about corner crossing in Montana has existed since June 1: https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/fwp-lies-about-corner-crossing.319620/

I agree, you're right, I was wrong. There needs to be more broad understanding as the Wyoming case will influence other states outside the 10th.

 

[Elky Welky]

I agree, you're right, I was wrong. There needs to be more broad understanding as the Wyoming case will influence other states outside the 10th.

We’re on the same side @BuzzH.

 

[BuzzH]

We’re on the same side @BuzzH.

I need to be reminded to keep the big picture in mind, thanks for that.

I typically don't worry about much, but this case keeps me wound up a bit tight.

 

[Elky Welky]

I need to be reminded to keep the big picture in mind, thanks for that.

I typically don't worry about much, but this case keeps me wound up a bit tight.

And that’s a good thing! Shows we care!

 

[Elky Welky]

The one thing I caution all who are big advocates of CC is to remember this, there are unintended consequences to every action, and when you force someone to give up a right, you are also forfeiting that same right.

You're operating with the underlying assumption that if corner crossing was clarified by SCOTUS, it would require "giving up a right." That assumption is simply not true.

Advocates in favor of clarifying the issue, myself included (some of us aren't just armchair lawyers), aren't operating under that assumption. We're asking for BLM, SCOTUS, USFS, and everyone else to recognize a right we, as public taxpayers, already have: a right to access land we own.

We come from a position that, for far too long, some landowners have been operating as though they "have a right" to landlock public land. That assumption hasn't been clarified by anyone, although the WY decision went a long ways to undercut it, and relies on some pretty sound logic to get there.

As an aside, many landowners, even when given a plethora of options (be it public access agreements, damage hunts, etc) choose to act as though their rights are being infringed and they are somehow being punished or "forced" to do something they should have been doing in the first place, instead of recognizing that they don't have a leg to stand on. Nobody is treading on their rights. These are public lands, and public resources, and the public's rights are the ones being infringed.

The only thing we are asking these people to "give up" is the misguided notion that they are entitled to something that was never theirs in the first place, which is a far cry from a "right."

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The only thing we are asking these people to "give up" is the misguided notion that they are entitled to something that was never theirs in the first place, which is a far cry from a "right."

This is a good synopsis. The courts seem to indicate the notion is misguided as well.

 

[Nicoli7153]

You're operating with the underlying assumption that if corner crossing was clarified by SCOTUS, it would require "giving up a right." That assumption is simply not true.

Advocates in favor of clarifying the issue, myself included (some of us aren't just armchair lawyers), aren't operating under that assumption. We're asking for BLM, SCOTUS, USFS, and everyone else to recognize a right we, as public taxpayers, already have: a right to access land we own.

We come from a position that, for far too long, some landowners have been operating as though they "have a right" to landlock public land. That assumption hasn't been clarified by anyone, although the WY decision went a long ways to undercut it, and relies on some pretty sound logic to get there.

As an aside, many landowners, even when given a plethora of options (be it public access agreements, damage hunts, etc) choose to act as though their rights are being infringed and they are somehow being punished or "forced" to do something they should have been doing in the first place, instead of recognizing that they don't have a leg to stand on. Nobody is treading on their rights. These are public lands, and public resources, and the public's rights are the ones being infringed.

The only thing we are asking these people to "give up" is the misguided notion that they are entitled to something that was never theirs in the first place, which is a far cry from a "right."

Right on the mark!!!! Thank you!

 

[JMos3]

(some of us aren't just armchair lawyers)

You’re a lawyer? First I’ve heard of this.

 

[cgasner1]

You’re a lawyer? First I’ve heard of this.

It’s been brought up a few times

 

[Elky Welky]

It’s been brought up a few times

On the Montana threads, yes. I think the audience there is well aware of who I am and what I do. But this thread speaks to a larger audience, so I wrote my comment with a larger audience in mind. So I'm sorry if it feels redundant to the 20 or so people that hang out on every thread on hunt talk. @JMos3 and a few others have made it clear they don't like or respect me, but I hope that doesn't distract from the topic of this conversation. You can't win over everyone, and I'm not really trying to.

But if we get a ruling on corner crossing that favors the public... then I'd say we all win!

 

[cgasner1]

On the Montana threads, yes. I think the audience there is well aware of who I am and what I do. But this thread speaks to a larger audience, so I wrote my comment with a larger audience in mind. So I'm sorry if it feels redundant to the 20 or so people that hang out on every thread on hunt talk. @JMos3 and a few others have made it clear they don't like or respect me, but I hope that doesn't distract from the topic of this conversation. You can't win over everyone, and I'm not really trying to.

But if we get a ruling on corner crossing that favors the public... then I'd say we all win!

The advice you give on here is well worth what I paid for it. I like a lot of these conversations it’s a great place to learn

 

[Flatbrimmer]

I know some guys in Missouri that might help with advise to anyone in Montana that might want to grow a pair.

Ol stickney ain’t from park county! DA said years ago he wouldn’t prosecute CC cases..

Just depends where you’re from and the INTENT.

I do love this statement though!

I also think it’s hilarious that when the judge hit the gavel, so many of these same folks said they wouldn’t risk it and it’s sooooo circumstantial and it’s just not worth it and now they say they cannot wait for this season to CC and hopefully everyone else is too scared. It’s unfortunate we won’t get to hear about the legal proceedings.. except buzz, maybe he’ll make headline news, and get some of those donations back from the Missourians

 

[Flatbrimmer]

On the Montana threads, yes. I think the audience there is well aware of who I am and what I do. But this thread speaks to a larger audience, so I wrote my comment with a larger audience in mind. So I'm sorry if it feels redundant to the 20 or so people that hang out on every thread on hunt talk. @JMos3 and a few others have made it clear they don't like or respect me, but I hope that doesn't distract from the topic of this conversation. You can't win over everyone, and I'm not really trying to.

But if we get a ruling on corner crossing that favors the public... then I'd say we all win!

I’m naive in many of these matters, but I can’t say I dislike you a bit Elky! There are a snobby few but you aren’t one of them.
Keep doing what you do, I trust you.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’m naive in many of these matters, but I can’t say I don’t dislike you a bit Elky! There are a snobby few but you aren’t one of them.
Keep doing what you do, I trust you.

So you dislike him, just a bit?

 

[Dakotakid]

Crossing off the negatives, does that mean, you can say you do dislike him a bit?

 

[Flatbrimmer]

So you dislike him, just a bit?

Hey good catch! Oopsie!!!

 

[FREAK]

What happens if the landowner put some sort of physical barrier (tall fence, rock pile, etc.) to prevent someone from crossing the first corner? I'm all in favor of CC and public access, plenty of places it would open up in Montana, but the whole idea of hauling a step latter across 3-4 sections sounds a little unpractical. If I'm a landowner and I saw a bunch of guys hauling ladders across corners and sections, I'd put a fence on the first one that's 10' set back a couple feet from the corner and call it a day. Maybe the points been discussed, so I apologize if I'm being repetitive.

 

[BoulderBulls]

What happens if the landowner put some sort of physical barrier (tall fence, rock pile, etc.) to prevent someone from crossing the first corner? I'm all in favor of CC and public access, plenty of places it would open up in Montana, but the whole idea of hauling a step latter across 3-4 sections sounds a little unpractical. If I'm a landowner and I saw a bunch of guys hauling ladders across corners and sections, I'd put a fence on the first one that's 10' set back a couple feet from the corner and call it a day. Maybe the points been discussed, so I apologize if I'm being repetitive.

10 feet?

You underestimate this crowds ambition to access quality hunting and fishing ground

 

[seeth07]

What happens if the landowner put some sort of physical barrier (tall fence, rock pile, etc.) to prevent someone from crossing the first corner? I'm all in favor of CC and public access, plenty of places it would open up in Montana, but the whole idea of hauling a step latter across 3-4 sections sounds a little unpractical. If I'm a landowner and I saw a bunch of guys hauling ladders across corners and sections, I'd put a fence on the first one that's 10' set back a couple feet from the corner and call it a day. Maybe the points been discussed, so I apologize if I'm being repetitive.

Basically i believe someonr can do that. However you would be impeding the person's ability to access that public land and they would be able to cross around, over or through that obstacle to gain the access. Think of stream access laws where there is a bridge or downed tree. You can walk around, even if on private land, to continue using rhe waterway

 

[Pack'n It]

Hope they invoke eminent domain for easements (however small)

Eminent Domains a 2 edged sword, everyone likes it until the government takes what's yours. We made it unconstitutional here.