Corner Crossing
- Thread starter mstolte
- Start date
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 333
I agree, matching willing buyers and sellers making FMV transactions is a good process and this may work well for some parcels. I believe there are several groups working this angle.
My point was the political winds of this country do not leave an infinite amount of sand in the hour glass for those landowners who think the American public will continue to accept landlocked/corner cross limitations to accessing federal lands. For the reasons VG pointed out, these landowners will not be getting any 5,6,7 figure sums for a small easement...so the deal offered today might be the best there is.
I am a strong supporter of property rights, but I do not differentiate between public and private property rights...I want both to be respected equally. I want the BLM, USFS etc. to be just as protective and hard nosed as say a texas billionaire might be if it were their own private lands in question.
As to your point about court cases...landowners blocking access via corner cross have a lot to lose in court...sportsmen really have nothing to lose. So I don't think there is any real fear from any sportsmen about litigation on this matter...sounds like several have tried to get a ticket and have not been successful. I imagine there are quite a few private landowners who sweat in their sleep the thought that someday they might not be able to keep the public off public lands
Schaaf
Well-known member
The beatings will continue
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I disagree. 'Don't know about Idaho, but the political climate in Montana leaves the wealthy landowner with no worries, certainly no sleepless sweats. Situation seems to hold prevalent in most states where this issue exists.I agree, matching willing buyers and sellers making FMV transactions is a good process and this may work well for some parcels. I believe there are several groups working this angle.
My point was the political winds of this country do not leave an infinite amount of sand in the hour glass for those landowners who think the American public will continue to accept landlocked/corner cross limitations to accessing federal lands. For the reasons VG pointed out, these landowners will not be getting any 5,6,7 figure sums for a small easement...so the deal offered today might be the best there is.
I am a strong supporter of property rights, but I do not differentiate between public and private property rights...I want both to be respected equally. I want the BLM, USFS etc. to be just as protective and hard nosed as say a texas billionaire might be if it were their own private lands in question.
As to your point about court cases...landowners blocking access via corner cross have a lot to lose in court...sportsmen really have nothing to lose. So I don't think there is any real fear from any sportsmen about litigation on this matter...sounds like several have tried to get a ticket and have not been successful. I imagine there are quite a few private landowners who sweat in their sleep the thought that someday they might not be able to keep the public off public lands
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 333
Agreed...at the state level. I'm talking federal.
“these landowners will not be getting any 5,6,7 figure sums for a small easement...so the deal offered today might be the best there is.“. You don’t know that, you also don’t know what other conservation groups might be planning or what some of these landowners might accept. Lowballing with a $1 easement is a slap in the face, even a $10,000 sum is pitifully low but might be a starting point. This process has only been ongoing since 1869 so it’s likely not going away anytime soon without each party gaining something.I imagine there are quite a few private landowners who sweat in their sleep the thought that someday they might not be able to keep the public off public lands
“I am a strong supporter of property rights, but I do not differentiate between public and private property rights.” Would you like someone cutting through your land to access the neighbors lot behind or how about someone camping in your backyard without your approval? Fighting for one at the expense of the other will not create a win-win situation or maintain our private property rights. Watch what Randy said in that YT video about the 14 min. mark.
“As to your point about court cases...landowners blocking access via corner cross have a lot to lose in court...sportsmen really have nothing to lose.” Only 15.87 Million acres is all sportsmen have to lose. Stakes are high on both sides, this is why a win- win
situation must be found.
” I imagine there are quite a few private landowners who sweat in their sleep the thought that someday they might not be able to keep the public off public lands “. There are many sportsmen who cringe at the possibility of the loss of 15.87 million acres. All it takes is one politician and these lands could all be up for sale, hell we could probably pay off the national debt with that much land but then where would it leave us and our grandchildren. Attempting to do this the right way and creating a win-win situation has a far better chance of opening up many of these lands.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Are you expecting us to become a dictatorship? The last time I checked it took 218 reps, 60 senators, one president and 5 SCOTUS votes to really change the world. Which "one" of them will accomplish this for you?
As for valuation - the case law is clear. You take the existing land and calculate its present market value (without consideration for any value derived from blocking access to federal lands), then you take the future value of those same lands with a 3ft easement at the corner (again giving no weight to the right to block access to federal lands). The difference between those numbers is the expected value to receive. There is no way under this valuation methodology, $10,000 is the number. It is only a number under the "hostage" theory of valuation - we hold this property under grave threats and saber-rattling and dare folks to cross us - but for $10,000 we might think about it. But sorry, current federal law does not use that methodology.
For a little context, currently according to 2020 USDA numbers the average value of 1 acre of grazing land in MT is $680. But let's be generous and call it $750. An acre is 43,560 ft2. In a corner scenario, to give pedestrians and 3ft wide easement, it would take 2.25 ft2 from each corner property if the government outright seized the land under eminent domain. So each corner owner would get $0.04 for the full value of that 2.25 ft2. Now a good lawyer would argue that the property owner's "quiet enjoyment" would be reduced by this and they should get something for the whole acre, not just the 2.2ft2 - often this is in the 10% range. So that gives you $75 per corner. And sometimes an acre can have particular appeal because of location or view. So let's say it is worth 10 times the current average value, or $6,800 -- so that gets you to $680 for a special corner.
The only way you get higher than that is (a) to account for the market value that is inflated due to the right to control access to federal land -- a value SCOTUS does not permit to be used; or (b) you convince everybody you can somehow make the government give you $100,000 but as a good guy and to find a "win-win" you will take $10,000. That is the BS that is being sold as it relates to federal land access in the west. I wonder if someday the citizens and politicians will stop playing the game?
I am not sure when that will be, but it will be well before "one politician" sells all federal land.
This mentality is why we still have 15.87 Million acres landlocked. I also Hope we never sell off these lands but at some point One politician may propose this and it catches on and snowballs until the majority think it’s a good idea. $10,000 is a pitifully low sum in most cases but hopefully there may be a few volunteers who might accept it, your valuations of these easements are out of touch for the 21st century. There are Conservation groups who have been successful in buying small parcels of land and in a few cases securing easements, that approach is at least working on a small scale, with more funding it could be scaled up.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
You can’t lose something you don’t have. We don’t have access to 15.87 million acres right now so what are we losing? If we lose a court battle over corner crossing then we are at the same stage as right now. We aren’t going to sell those lands just because we can’t corner hop onto them.
Many just on this forum corner hop and other groups like photographers, rock hounders and other recreationists do the same. Losing that avenue from unsettled law to a Legislative or Court mandated outlawing of the practice or selling off the lands would affect many of those.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Ben Lamb is likely to assess you a heavy fine for such outlandish pessimism on this forum.
Beatings will continue.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Bighollow is right in that a few bucks is a slap in the face to landowners, Vikingsguy is also right in that under current eminent domain laws a few bucks is all you are going to get. Eminent domain laws need to be revised to reflect the true value of the property.
I would argue that the value of the land is the present value of the revenue stream that the landowner can get by providing access to the public parcel. FWP currently has a program that pays landowners for access to public land. I would use this program as a guide. Ten thousand is probably a out of line for a section of land but if the public parcel is big enough might be very reasonable.
Personally I would much rather see corner crossing resolved by the legislation that by the courts.
This is what I would ask for.
Corner crossing only be allowed on coroners that have a survey pin. GPS is accurate but not that accurate and as soon as you allow say a fifteen foot fudge zone, someone is going to push it to 20 feet, and then 50 feet and more. If the corner is not pinned sportsman can pay for the survey, if the landowner removes the pin they can pay the fine and the cost of a new survey.
Foot access only. I have been on enough horses in my life to know that getting one to step right over a pin would be difficult at best.
Corners with fence need to be crossed with the use of a ladder at sportsman's expense. If the corner is not fenced and the landowner wants to build a fence they must provide the ladder.
A healthy increase in the fines for trespassing. Nothing is a bigger slap in the face than catching someone blatantly trespassing and then watch them get away with a little fine. My biggest fear is not that some one is going to hop a corner and shoot a deer. My biggest fear is that the unethical would use the public to traspase on my private. I deal with people trespassing from public land every year. Some of them are completely inadvertent like the guy that left tracks in the snow fifty yards into the private. You could see by his tracks when he stopped and looked at his GPS and realized he was on private. Stopped, made a right angle turn back to the public and then resumed former course. Others like the guy that put up a bait pile of corn and sugar beets 100 yards into private are not so innocent. I would not have pressed charges on the first, would have thrown the book at the second if we had caught them.
Some type of access fee on a per person user. Something along the lines of the current FWP program or Block Management.
Corner Crossing is only a positive for me personally as there is no corners that would apply anywhere near property I own. Maybe I would have a change in attitude if there was.
I would argue that the value of the land is the present value of the revenue stream that the landowner can get by providing access to the public parcel. FWP currently has a program that pays landowners for access to public land. I would use this program as a guide. Ten thousand is probably a out of line for a section of land but if the public parcel is big enough might be very reasonable.
Personally I would much rather see corner crossing resolved by the legislation that by the courts.
This is what I would ask for.
Corner crossing only be allowed on coroners that have a survey pin. GPS is accurate but not that accurate and as soon as you allow say a fifteen foot fudge zone, someone is going to push it to 20 feet, and then 50 feet and more. If the corner is not pinned sportsman can pay for the survey, if the landowner removes the pin they can pay the fine and the cost of a new survey.
Foot access only. I have been on enough horses in my life to know that getting one to step right over a pin would be difficult at best.
Corners with fence need to be crossed with the use of a ladder at sportsman's expense. If the corner is not fenced and the landowner wants to build a fence they must provide the ladder.
A healthy increase in the fines for trespassing. Nothing is a bigger slap in the face than catching someone blatantly trespassing and then watch them get away with a little fine. My biggest fear is not that some one is going to hop a corner and shoot a deer. My biggest fear is that the unethical would use the public to traspase on my private. I deal with people trespassing from public land every year. Some of them are completely inadvertent like the guy that left tracks in the snow fifty yards into the private. You could see by his tracks when he stopped and looked at his GPS and realized he was on private. Stopped, made a right angle turn back to the public and then resumed former course. Others like the guy that put up a bait pile of corn and sugar beets 100 yards into private are not so innocent. I would not have pressed charges on the first, would have thrown the book at the second if we had caught them.
Some type of access fee on a per person user. Something along the lines of the current FWP program or Block Management.
Corner Crossing is only a positive for me personally as there is no corners that would apply anywhere near property I own. Maybe I would have a change in attitude if there was.
Last edited:
I agree with Randy's podcast on corner crossing and his position that it's private property / unable to cross a corner. With that said - I also value Montana's Stream Access Law(s).
Such as:
Bridge Access:
The Department, in cooperation with the affected landowner and county, is responsible for providing public passage around or through a fence preventing such access. A typical access feature would be a stile, gate, roller, walkover, or wooden rail fence.
Seems Montana recognizes the intent for public rights to water passage through private land. Something similar would be a solid Montana (as an example) move for public access at corners. I like @antlerradar 's opinion for the survey marker.
Such as:
Bridge Access:
The Department, in cooperation with the affected landowner and county, is responsible for providing public passage around or through a fence preventing such access. A typical access feature would be a stile, gate, roller, walkover, or wooden rail fence.
Seems Montana recognizes the intent for public rights to water passage through private land. Something similar would be a solid Montana (as an example) move for public access at corners. I like @antlerradar 's opinion for the survey marker.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Good post. On this one point, I want to clarify my thinking. In typical eminent domain proceedings, full market value is a primary driver of price. It is the unique situation here where the primary market value is in fact driven by simple access to federal lands where this special rule applies and dramatically drives down the allowable price.
There is good reason for this. The private corner owner - him/herself can gain full benefit from the common public land, but denies access to fellow citizens/owners. In this case, it is a huge windfall to allow a 0.0000000003% owner of the public land to extort full value from the other 99.9999999997% of the owners.
One simple way to even it up would be for the feds to block access to any federal lands which are landlocked to any person regardless of adjacent property. Then we could have a fair negotiation on a compromise, win-win, outcome. Otherwise, it just remains a hostage negotiation.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 333
I support this idea and it's what I was getting at with equal property rights. If your neighbor was a jerk and never let you cross his place...why let him on yours?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Given that real value of a lot of that land is mineral dev/ grazing I think that would actually be a pretty effective means of bring stakeholders to the table.
There should absolutely be a compromise, but public land owners need to play the same kind of hard ball that private landowners are currently playing.
All valid points from Antlerradar and Viking above regarding Corner Crossing. I wholeheartedly agree you can only cross a pin and not just Willy Nilly go out there with a GPS and claim you crossed the corner as even Garmin defines their GPS are at best accurate to within 15 meters or 49 feet. Remember the GPS has a small built in error rate which the military controls. They have agreed to keep this error rate minimal as it is utilized as almost exclusive long range navigation for almost all aircraft and ships and now even the general public use their installed GPS in their vehicle or bring along their phones as navigators. The military however can and does occasionally place errors into these signals on purpose, remember they have the codes to ensure accuracy for their own use. In my experience I have found about 90% of these survey pin markers while searching. Most were surveyed during the 1950s and 60s so well before GPS days. With further funding there could be more surveys completed and additional brass caps installed during these surveys and validated as to their accuracy.
Regarding restricting private landowners from public lands this is another decent idea and has been tried before but would need some fleshing out. It has also met opposition in the Courts. Another defacto way the BLM has controlled those who would not allow even BLM officials to gain access to these landlocked lands was through cancelling grazing permits. Most landowners care more about the grazing than the hunting as they often times lease out the hunting and focus on cattle management and not the hunting which outside outfitters many times lease all the hunting rights.
Regarding relying on legislation over the Courts, both have never been successful. In both Montana and Wyoming the agriculture committees tried getting legislation through which outlawed corner crossing and also sportsmen‘s groups have spearheaded efforts to get legislation legalized for corner hopping. These bills usually never pass the committee level. I still think the path forward is trying to just negotiate with each individual landowner and focusing on volunteers first and the largest parcels ie biggest bang for the buck prioritizing how one corner can open up the largest parcels. Trying to create win-win agreements and paying a modest market value payment of $10,000 per corner is a reasonable starting point. I also seriously think some of the 160 acre and less parcels which are landlocked should be sold off and each state gets 25% of the sale price for Federal lands.
Regarding restricting private landowners from public lands this is another decent idea and has been tried before but would need some fleshing out. It has also met opposition in the Courts. Another defacto way the BLM has controlled those who would not allow even BLM officials to gain access to these landlocked lands was through cancelling grazing permits. Most landowners care more about the grazing than the hunting as they often times lease out the hunting and focus on cattle management and not the hunting which outside outfitters many times lease all the hunting rights.
Regarding relying on legislation over the Courts, both have never been successful. In both Montana and Wyoming the agriculture committees tried getting legislation through which outlawed corner crossing and also sportsmen‘s groups have spearheaded efforts to get legislation legalized for corner hopping. These bills usually never pass the committee level. I still think the path forward is trying to just negotiate with each individual landowner and focusing on volunteers first and the largest parcels ie biggest bang for the buck prioritizing how one corner can open up the largest parcels. Trying to create win-win agreements and paying a modest market value payment of $10,000 per corner is a reasonable starting point. I also seriously think some of the 160 acre and less parcels which are landlocked should be sold off and each state gets 25% of the sale price for Federal lands.
