Corner Crossing - Where to go from here?

[Big Fin]

UPOM strikes again.

Corner crossing access bill tabled; fight planned

January 30, 2013 1:39 pm • By Brett French

The co-sponsor of a bill that would have allowed the public to cross private land at fence corners plans to attempt to blast the bill to the House floor after it was tabled by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

"Obviously it was a pretty big surprise," said Rep. Ellie Boldman Hill, D-Missoula, the primary sponsor of the measure.

Even more surprising to her was the fact that her co-sponsor, Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, voted against his own measure.

Hill said she hadn't seen so much interest in an issue since last session's medical-marijuana law was debated. Sportsmen gathered more than 2,000 signatures on a petition supporting the bill. And Hill said many of the people she heard from supporting the bill didn't "hail from bastions of liberalism."

House Bill 235 had been supported by sporting groups and opposed by landowner and agricultural interests.

The bill would have defined what so far has been a legal gray area. The bill read in part, “When crossing from one property in which a person is lawfully authorized to remain to another property in which the person is lawfully authorized to remain pursuant to subsection (1), a person is permitted to cross private land at the geographic point that represents the corner of one or more parcels of private land …”

A legal review attached to the bill said it may raise constitutional issues related to the taking of private property without just compensation.

"What this bill would have done, however, is create a dangerous precedent that the public has the right to trespass on private land to access public property,” wrote Chuck Denowh, spokesman for United Property Owners of Montana, in a prepared statement. “That's something only the radical fringe can support."

Hill disagreed.

"Frankly, I'm a lawyer, and I don't think it's a constitutional taking," she said. "You're not even touching other land."

Supporters said the bill would make it easier for hunters to access public land that now is unreachable where public lands intersect.

While acknowledging that some public land is difficult to access, Denowh said the state should be looking to divest itself of such properties to acquire parcels more easily reached.

"That's a solution that landowners and sportsmen can get behind," he wrote.

Hill said she thinks "powerful" nonresident landowners are the main opponents to the bill, not "fifth generation" farmers and ranchers.

"That's why we're going to fight for the blue-collar hunter," she said.

Before her attempt to blast the bill to the House floor for a vote, Hill said a rally is planned on the Capitol steps at 10 a.m. on Feb. 18. It takes a three-fifths majority to move a tabled bill forward.

"We know it's a high burden, but we think this bill is worth it," Hill said.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...4f8-5fe7-8be2-d85ae9ce1290.html#ixzz2Jh5PtwtR

 

[Four White Socks]

I hope I am not stepping on too many toes, but I have a hard time seeing how someone could step from one corner to another without touching the adjacent corners, unless you are dragging around survey equipment. I think the opposition has a valid point in that this sets a precedent for legal trespass. I see that some of you have talked to a "preeminent" lawyer on the matter, but the facts are that these lawyers don't get to make the decision on this, a judge does. Obviously this legislation is subject to judicial review, whether it were passed by the legislature or ballot initiative. I just don't buy the notion that ALL of these republicans are anti-hunter and anti-access, more likely there is some pretty solid legal problems with the bill. Wouldn't we be better served to work toward a legal solution, one that doesn't put us directly at odds with landowners?

 

[jryoung]

I see that some of you have talked to a "preeminent" lawyer on the matter, but the facts are that these lawyers don't get to make the decision on this, a judge does.

Lawyers have expertise and the case law to support them. Law firms just don't throw their name on a Memorandum, especially if they expect to fight in court.

Said Republicans aren't anti-hunting, anti-access, they are anti-public land hunter, anti-public land access because they have been supported by outfitters and landowners.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, pass the bill and hear it in court...theres your legal solution.

Landowners have run rough-shod over hunters and public access for a long time. Time for that to end.

Same with the Republican Party...they've trashed hunters every chance they get. Those that dont want to support hunting need to be shown the unemployment line next election.

Let them find something else, besides my public access and wildlife, to use as a political punching bag.

 

[Big Fin]

I hope I am not stepping on too many toes, but I have a hard time seeing how someone could step from one corner to another without touching the adjacent corners, unless you are dragging around survey equipment. I think the opposition has a valid point in that this sets a precedent for legal trespass. I see that some of you have talked to a "preeminent" lawyer on the matter, but the facts are that these lawyers don't get to make the decision on this, a judge does. Obviously this legislation is subject to judicial review, whether it were passed by the legislature or ballot initiative. I just don't buy the notion that ALL of these republicans are anti-hunter and anti-access, more likely there is some pretty solid legal problems with the bill. Wouldn't we be better served to work toward a legal solution, one that doesn't put us directly at odds with landowners?

All good points. Yes, their will be judicial review of any outcome, which is why I think the court route is way better than a ballot initiative. The judicial review happens as it goes along. No big waste of time and money, only to have it tossed by a judge.

I am sure I could step from corner to corner without touching the adjacent private corners.

Not ALL of these Republicans are anti-public hunter, just the overwhelming majority of them. Most would be judged that, given the bills they sponsor and vote for. Most are anti- public access. One only needs to read the past Republican Party platforms and its position on public lands and read the bills these legislators support/vote for to see their position on access.

As far as working with them, that has been tried for years, by many of us. I, and some other conservative hunters here in our valley, used to attend Republican Party meetings to discuss policies on hunting, fishing, and access. After one meeting I was cornered by local party leaders and was told I was no longer welcome at these meetings. I was not "Republican enough."

Fine. I stopped going. I am still a very conservative person. It just proved how far out on the fringe the party I had associated with had become. How much disdain they had for anyone with the notion that public land and public wildlife is a good thing.

What really got me tossed was a few battles over using hunter license dollars to pay/bail out some of their pet industries. And, heaven forbid, I supported some land trades that consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres of public land we all now enjoy hunting on. The slant of that group is even worse now than it was when I was uninvited ten years ago.

If you are able to work with some of these people on hunting and access issues, your efforts would be very welcome. Working together is always a better solution. I have worked to form very good relationships with about ten of them, though I know we may not always agree. In fact, we often don't agree on certain bills. We do agree that the attacks on FWP and resident hunters needs to stop, which in itself is progress. It would be great if hunters and their opinions were more welcome among their circle.

Many here have tried to work with Republican party leaders, only to be kicked in the groin. After about four or five kicks, you finally kick back.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

A couple comments:
1---If a corner is pinned (marked), then it's very easy to step from one area to the other without touching the two adjacent pieces of property. Thus, you have not trespassed on the private property or done any damage to said property.
2---If a corner is not pinned (marked) and you use a GPS to determine the corner and cross over to the public property, the landowner should have to bear the burden of proof that you did not cross at the corner and, in fact, stepped on his private property. I would think that would be pretty hard to do in the courtroom if he can't even show where the corner is!

 

[mtmuley]

I hope I'm wrong, but when this bill finally gets approved, we will be at odds with a big percentage of landowners. Located survey pins will be best of course, but keeping careful track of your whereabouts with a GPS will be helpful. mtmuley

 

[Four White Socks]

Some good points. I don't think a GPS unit is going to put you on the corner accurately enough. If it is pinned then no problem. Few are. The experiences you have had with some of these party members is unfortunate but I know a handful of the republican members of that committee and how they have been described here is simply not accurate. They may have some different priorities from some of you but anti-public hunters is not an honest characterization of the ones that I know. They simply do not wish to infringe on private property rights, which are a cornerstone of a free society.

Don't get me wrong, to access these land locked parcels would be a great thing for us as hunters, but to bull our necks and say "full speed ahead with our agenda and to heck with anyone else." is a mistake. I say lets here what the republicans have for a solution, instead of flapping our ears shut at the mention that they have an alternative plan.

 

[wyoming556]

I'm thinking the state of MT should install ladders at all corners to prevent trespassing and pay for it all with marijuana tax money.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Four White Socks---Nobody is infringing on the private property rights of an owner when they corner jump! Actually even if a person is off a few feet when using a GPS their would really be no harm done. The ONLY reason they don't want it allowed is because it will infringe on THEIR total use of the public land since they are the only ones using it now. Ask them what other reason there is and they can't come up with even one reason!

 

[Z Barebow]

Four White Socks---Nobody is infringing on the private property rights of an owner when they corner jump! Actually even if a person is off a few feet when using a GPS their would really be no harm done. The ONLY reason they don't want it allowed is because it will infringe on THEIR total use of the public land since they are the only ones using it now. Ask them what other reason there is and they can't come up with even one reason!

100% Spot on.

There is no way you can cross a corner legally on a four wheeled vehicle. This limits you to foot traffic. How would human footprints cause harm when a herd of 1200 pound cattle does not? I will await an answer.

 

[Big Fin]

.......to bull our necks and say "full speed ahead with our agenda and to heck with anyone else." is a mistake. I say lets here what the republicans have for a solution, instead of flapping our ears shut at the mention that they have an alternative plan.

Thanks again for you comments, White Shoes.

A week ago today, some of us met with a few Republicans and some of the groups who are against the corner crossing bill. The topic was discussed and the concerns of those groups were stated. No alternative plan was given. The discussion was more like, "Don't go forward with this idea. Now is not the right time. This is a huge issue for our constituents."

I think most would love to hear of any alternative plan. As of last Friday, no one we talked to knew of an alternative plan. Talked to some of them on Monday and Tuesday; again, none of them have mentioned or offered an idea to consider. Maybe you know of one. It would be helpful to know what that is.

No doubt, hunters are tired of getting abused by the fringes of this group. Yeah, our necks are starting to stiffen. We have been getting the hell beat out of us by these groups for the last ten years.

It is not like corner crossing is a knee-jerk reaction. This is something we have investigated for years. We were quite surprised when it was introduced this session with both a Dem and Rep sponsoring it. It is something that we strongly believe is not an infringement of private property rights. If it turns out to be an infringement, the idea should be put on the shelf.

Given the beatings these groups have administered to hunters for years, it is pretty hard to expect hunters to all of a sudden decide we will trust them. Just not how it works. Not practical to think one can make deliberate attempts to go after hunters, access, FWP budgets for years, and then when in a tough spot, hunters are going to come with hat in hand.

The first bill out of the chute this session is to stop any bighorn sheep transplants,. Then we go right to huge increases in non-resident tags. Then using hunter money to fund some of their pet projects. In short order, they let us know that this would be just like the last sessions. They introduce and support these bills, not hunters. Certainly they don't think this stuff happens in a vacuum.

Additionally, the leadership of the Republican party is to blame for much of this. Out of humor, vendetta, or whatever, they appointed the most anti-FWP, anti-resident hunter, anti-access Senator in all of the Senate to chair the Senate F&G Committee. They knew damn well that doing so would make life very difficult for hunters. Look at some of the people they put on that committee and the House FWP Committee. Same desired affect.

That is not leadership. That is not governing. That is using elected position to let people take out their personal axes and start grinding. Such lack of leadership has an impact to the nature and tone of the debate.

These fringe legislators now think hunters should drop their support on such an important issue as corner crossing. Seems they should have thought about that when they continued to sic the hounds on us every session, then laughed all the way out the door.

We sure wish it was different. Life would be a lot easier on all of us. Hunters did not start the battle, and to our own detriment, some would say stupidity, we continued to try work with them and find friends among them. They can thank the party leaders and the likes of Brenden, Barrett, and their followers for the state of affairs these legislators have created with hunters.

Maybe the character of these people, with respect to hunters, is as you say. Their voting records do not support that. Their refusal to listen/talk to hunters does not support that. Their votes on party leadership and party policy do not reflect that. It is hopeful to hear they act differently to people they know. What changes their attitudes when in this legislative environment is hard to understand.

That coming from a hunter who has a pretty conservative slant to most issues in life.

 

[shoots-straight]

Some good points. I don't think a GPS unit is going to put you on the corner accurately enough. If it is pinned then no problem. Few are. The experiences you have had with some of these party members is unfortunate but I know a handful of the republican members of that committee and how they have been described here is simply not accurate. They may have some different priorities from some of you but anti-public hunters is not an honest characterization of the ones that I know. They simply do not wish to infringe on private property rights, which are a cornerstone of a free society.

Don't get me wrong, to access these land locked parcels would be a great thing for us as hunters, but to bull our necks and say "full speed ahead with our agenda and to heck with anyone else." is a mistake. I say lets here what the republicans have for a solution, instead of flapping our ears shut at the mention that they have an alternative plan.

I would really love to see such a proposal myself.

To disallow a law, solely on the basis that you "might" accidentally step on private property because of faulty GPS technology, or lack of survey marking's is ridiculous.

I'm a firm believer in property rights myself, but what about the public's right to access our lands? Why do you believe in personal property rights over the public property rights? Is one more compelling than the other?

So long as the private lands aren't trespassed on, touched, or tampered with in any way, then give us our access.

The truth is, a small portion of people in the Republican party, claim those lands for themselves. They enjoy all the benefits of those lands, without any of the negatives of land ownership. Many make a profit off those lands just by the convenient placement of boarders.

The Republicans on the committee have shown complete disregard for the Montana resident sportsman time and time again.

I would hope that any group of people under attack would have the strength to fight back. My wish is that the Montana sportsman will find that strength in themselves and take the fight to Helena.

 

[sweetnectar]

I'm thinking the state of MT should install ladders at all corners to prevent trespassing and pay for it all with marijuana tax money.

You crack me up. I'm not sure a landowner would even be allowed to have a fence on a corner because it might be misconstrued that the intent of the fence is to limit access.

I'm still laughing at the quotes that post everytime you make a comment. The crossbow bill thread has to be one of the greatest threads ever.

 

[webejmn]

What time the 18th do we need to be there. I am assuming Feb 18, but assuming makes an ass of you and me. Someone let me know, please. Sorry never mind 12:15 the 18th got it, will do my best to be there with at least two others. Oh hell, !0 am for the rally. K!

 

[track1]

Would there be any way to have the USFS, State of Montana and BLM amend their lease agreements or at least make any new lease agreements to read that public access must be allowed or their lease would be revoked and they would not be able to farm or ranch on those leases until public access was allowed?

 

[shoots-straight]

Would there be any way to have the USFS, State of Montana and BLM amend their lease agreements or at least make any new lease agreements to read that public access must be allowed or their lease would be revoked and they would not be able to farm or ranch on those leases until public access was allowed?

Some people might hold the lease to a piece of public land surrounded by private land that they, themselves don't own. In that case it wouldn't work.

 

[track1]

I'm sure there would be some exceptions and people trying to find loopholes but it's something to think about.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Some good points. I don't think a GPS unit is going to put you on the corner accurately enough. If it is pinned then no problem. Few are. The experiences you have had with some of these party members is unfortunate but I know a handful of the republican members of that committee and how they have been described here is simply not accurate. They may have some different priorities from some of you but anti-public hunters is not an honest characterization of the ones that I know. They simply do not wish to infringe on private property rights, which are a cornerstone of a free society.

Don't get me wrong, to access these land locked parcels would be a great thing for us as hunters, but to bull our necks and say "full speed ahead with our agenda and to heck with anyone else." is a mistake. I say lets here what the republicans have for a solution, instead of flapping our ears shut at the mention that they have an alternative plan.

Ah yes, the Republican leaders who care so much about the average Joe Sportsmen. You mean the ones like former Senator Bales, who petitioned Powder River County to abandon a county road that closed off thousands of acres of public land in prime mule deer county? While he continued to run his outfitting business with the lease on the public land? Or how he pushed each session to make it virtually a hanging offense to trespass on private land while hunting areas with unfenced and unmarked boundaries?

The only reason there is public access to this area now is because people pushed full speed ahead and got an access road put in. It's been my observation that the Republican solution is take whatever they can get whenever it benefits them.

 

[jlmatthew]

Ah yes, the Republican leaders who care so much about the average Joe Sportsmen.

Funny how here in Colorado it will be the Democrats that will make it harder for average Joe sportsman to draw a tag when they pass the next Landowner giveaway here in a little bit (more of the tag quota). Of course the Repubs havent been much better when they were in control. We've gone too far with the commercialization of hunting for there to be any chance of turning the sport around. Makes the problems in MT & WY seem minor compared to here

Hope you guys can win this one, cause its pure BS that they dont want to allow going from public to public.