BLM Directed to Implement Corner Crossing

[Badlandcat]

That was my original thought

As a person that has gone thru the eminent domain process. First the government would have to prove that the land would benefit the majority of the public. Then there would have to be 5 years or so of studies done and then all the corner markers would have to be recertified or marked. All landowners would have to be compensated, remember smaller the acreage the higher the value.
I just don't see the feds using eminent domain. For sure the state of Montana won't spend the money.
It might happen, but I wouldn't hold breath waiting.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The eminent domain would only need to be for a right of way diagonally through the corner from public to public, no need to purchase as deeded.

Imposing eminent domain is not appropriate, feasible, or even legislatively established for such limited public involvement. I don't think you understand the intent, the process, and the precedence of eminent domain.

 

[treedagain]

I think I’ve already said in a lot of states I would guess there will be minimal impact to wildlife(states that have some type of wildlife management). Montana is a free for all and lack of access is the only thing keeping the wildlife from being shot or pushed further into large blocks of private. It will have negative effects for wildlife and hunting in Montana without a change of management. I also know that’s a very narrow view and hunting is just part of public land use. If you want to do it have at it, the attorney in my county said he would prosecute it, go be a hero for the rest of us.

Where at all did I say I planned to corner cross? Never had to in my hunts. My 2 elk mountain hunts in WYOMING, I was able to access the landlocked public by being decent to the landowner and had no issues killing 6point bulls on public.

Free access.

Are you one of those landowners that will be affected? Apparently your his (attorney) buddy? Does he hunt your ground?

 

[kwyeewyk]

Imposing eminent domain is not appropriate, feasible, or even legislatively established for such limited public involvement. I don't think you understand the intent, the process, and the precedence of eminent domain.

Correct, I don't know much about eminent domain, never claimed to, nor did I state that I think it's appropriate or feasible, just pointing out that it wouldn't be deeded ground if it was done that way, just a ROW. I don't think it will never happen, and isn't necessary for corner crossing to be legal.

 

[SwaggyD]

Where at all did I say I planned to corner cross? Never had to in my hunts. My 2 elk mountain hunts in WYOMING, I was able to access the landlocked public by being decent to the landowner and had no issues killing 6point bulls on public.

Free access.

Are you one of those landowners that will be affected? Apparently you’re his (attorney) buddy? Does he hunt your ground?

the only people hunting his 10 acres are his neighbors trespassing to shoot a muley forkie!

 

[Irishman]

The government doesn't have to enough money for eminent domain, current elk hunting ranches are pushing 2k per acre.

Could just pay the value they claim it's worth for tax purposes. Wouldn't cost much at all.

 

[Badlandcat]

Could just pay the value they claim it's worth for tax purposes. Wouldn't cost much at all.

The cost of the actual land is the smallest amount of money in the whole process.
Lawyers will make the most money.

 

[treedagain]

the only people hunting his 10 acres are his neighbors trespassing to shoot a muley forkie!

I guess he wants to a save them all? Doug the forkie savor?

Just another greedy landowner denying access? Then ask for compensation for damages to his rose bushes?

Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem

 

[SwaggyD]

Doug the forkie savor?

Doug the flavor savor!
Dougfuckinsticky the forkie savior!

edit: I guess he could open up all 10 acres if he wanted.

 

[DFS]

I guess he wants to a save them all? Doug the forkie savor?

Just another greedy landowner denying access? Then ask for compensation for damages to his rose bushes?

Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem

If you want to corner cross get to hopping, I’m certainly not standing in your way.

 

[MTGomer]

That was my original thought

I think the issue with an eminent domain claim is that in nearly all of these circumstances the United States landlocked the public lands by issuing fee patents without reserving access to the retained lands.

How do you make a claim to a right that you willfully dissolved yourself of?
There are many fee patents where the government did reserve access
along section and quarter section lines, which I think would go a long ways toward the private property side of the argument, that this was clearly a tool that was at the United States’ disposal, and that the US was simply not interested in choosing to retain access via easement to these properties.

 

[Elky Welky]

Federal law trumps state law, every single time.

This is not entirely true. Federal preemption is its own area of law, and any powers not explicitly given to the feds are reserved for the states. The ruling out of WY, although decided in a federal district court, was only there because it was a civil claim with complete diversity of jurisdiction (WY and MO) and the suit was in an amount over $75,000, which is the threshold for a federal case. The criminal case remained entirely with the state.

Even if upheld on appeal, the WY case will only apply in the 10th circuit, and with parameters as narrowly tailored as the one outlined by the judge in that case. Other states (like MT) will still need to litigate it, write cc into law, run a ballot initiative, or come up with their own solutions. Eminent domain is probably the least likely way to claim a public easement at a corner. The WY case gives a fantastic roadmap as it is to establish the public necessity of access at a corner, and I suggest reading it.

And if you are interested in a legal deep dive into where MT, as a state outside of 10th circuit jurisdiction, stands currently, then I suggest reading this, which also includes a link to the WY decision and pertinent case law: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/thinking_about_corner_crossing_in_montana_read_this_first

 

[Eric Albus]

All the armchair lawyers and judges in the peanut gallery need to chill.

This extremely divisive issue needs to decided before the Supreme Court of the U.S..

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.

 

[antlerradar]

I would guess in a lot of states there won’t be much of an impact, Montana’s opportunity at all cost management could have some real negative effects for wildlife. Unless mtfwp reign things in, all it’s going to do is make the landowner sportsman divide even greater.

I can understand why some one would want to get several sections deep on a checker board landscape. No one should expect a hunting paradise on most of the checker board and any of the few gems out there will lose there luster quickly. Will the hunting be better than hunting the Custer, probably, will the hunting be better than the Custer thirty years ago probably not. As Doug pointed out we have a management problem. Corner Crossing may provide some temporary relief for some places, but not for long.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This extremely divisive issue needs to decided before the Supreme Court of the U.S..

Agreed that it would be a good resolution of this issue.

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.

Generally a good point. However, in this case the "right" to which you refer is a not a legitimate "right" to lock up hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for exclusive private property landowners' use because somehow the public may "trespass" on a tiny piece of private land or a tiny airspace valued as private.
Many of us strongly assert that denying public access to public land is, in fact, a taking by private entities who should be held accountable and should now open access to the rightful owners of the public land ... and perhaps provide retroactive compensation for the longtime exclusive private use of public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

This is not entirely true. Federal preemption is its own area of law, and any powers not explicitly given to the feds are reserved for the states. The ruling out of WY, although decided in a federal district court, was only there because it was a civil claim with complete diversity of jurisdiction (WY and MO) and the suit was in an amount over $75,000, which is the threshold for a federal case. The criminal case remained entirely with the state.

Even if upheld on appeal, the WY case will only apply in the 10th circuit, and with parameters as narrowly tailored as the one outlined by the judge in that case. Other states (like MT) will still need to litigate it, write cc into law, run a ballot initiative, or come up with their own solutions. Eminent domain is probably the least likely way to claim a public easement at a corner. The WY case gives a fantastic roadmap as it is to establish the public necessity of access at a corner, and I suggest reading it.

And if you are interested in a legal deep dive into where MT, as a state outside of 10th circuit jurisdiction, stands currently, then I suggest reading this, which also includes a link to the WY decision and pertinent case law: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/thinking_about_corner_crossing_in_montana_read_this_first

Maybe I should have been more involved with this whole corner crossing case a bit more from, you know, the start.

For the record, no offense, I'm just more inclined to believe a different, and better attorney who is directly involved.

Semerad on Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

Ryan Semerad’s opinion on the Wyoming Federal District Court’s corner crossing order.

justiceforcowboys.com

 

[BuzzH]

I can understand why some one would want to get several sections deep on a checker board landscape. No one should expect a hunting paradise on most of the checker board and any of the few gems out there will lose there luster quickly. Will the hunting be better than hunting the Custer, probably, will the hunting be better than the Custer thirty years ago probably not. As Doug pointed out we have a management problem. Corner Crossing may provide some temporary relief for some places, but not for long.

I think Montana and Wyoming are a tale of 2 entirely different situations when speaking of corner crossing. I agree with you that sans proper management like Montana, corner crossing isn't all that helpful long term. In Wyoming corner crossing opens a variety of interesting possibilities in a positive way to help game management, spread hunting pressure out, and gain access to quality managed animals.

 

[Elky Welky]

Maybe I should have been more involved with this whole corner crossing case a bit more from, you know, the start.

For the record, no offense, I'm just more inclined to believe a different, and better attorney who is directly involved.

Semerad on Wyoming Corner Crossing Case

Ryan Semerad’s opinion on the Wyoming Federal District Court’s corner crossing order.

justiceforcowboys.com

Offense was clearly intended, but if I was offended by everyone with an opinion on hunt talk, I’d probably need some pretty serious therapy.

You did get it partially right in your next post, Montana and WY are, in fact, different states, it turns out. Mr. Semerad is an excellent attorney and I agree with his views on the law in WY, and have been been in touch with him. The article I shared here is about the status of cc in Montana, and for those interested in that.

With regards to federal preemption and diversity jurisdiction, those are simple legal concepts that are hammered into every law student’s minds their first couple months of school. So you don’t need to trust a “better” attorney with those concepts, even the most barely qualified lawyer would be able to point out how you were incorrect on that point.

No offense, of course.

 

[BuzzH]

Offense was clearly intended, but if I was offended by everyone with an opinion on hunt talk, I’d probably need some pretty serious therapy.

You did get it partially right in your next post, Montana and WY are, in fact, different states, it turns out. Mr. Semerad is an excellent attorney and I agree with his views on the law in WY, and have been been in touch with him. The article I shared here is about the status of cc in Montana, and for those interested in that.

With regards to federal preemption and diversity jurisdiction, those are simple legal concepts that are hammered into every law student’s minds their first couple months of school. So you don’t need to trust a “better” attorney with those concepts, even the most barely qualified lawyer would be able to point out how you were incorrect on that point.

No offense, of course.

Start another thread about corner crossing in Montana. Maybe, as @JM77 said, someone in Montana may grow a pair and start moving things along there.

Also, there's a reason Ryan scribed that memo, plenty of opinions and naysayers on what's happened in Wyoming. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Elky Welky]

Start another thread about corner crossing in Montana. Maybe, as @JM77 said, someone in Montana may grow a pair and start moving things along there.

Also, there's a reason Ryan scribed that memo, plenty of opinions and naysayers on what's happened in Wyoming. It's absolutely ridiculous.

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/