I’m not aware of this if so. I have a personal experience where a CPW officer threatened a landowner with a harassment charge for confronting hunters a a corner pin. Something may have changed, but I think it would have been a big story.I found this recent article by Don Thomas. Note that he says Utah, Idaho, Colorado and New Mexico have specifically made corner crossing illegal.
Our Checkered Past
And our checkerboarded present. A history of patchwork land ownership in the west. To prove legal title to land, one must trace it back to the man who stole it. —Lloyd George, former Prime Minister of the UK Right triangles, trapezoids, parallelograms...outsidebozeman.com
Corner Crossing
- Thread starter mstolte
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Yup - this is really poor and essentially worthless. There is no robust reasoning for other jurisdictions to consider let alone find persuasive, and these types of letters are not at all binding on future office holders or the courts.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Developing or changing precedent via targeted litigation can (and has) worked, but you really need a thoughtful and careful set of decisions. You need the right judge, the right sheriff, the right county, the right state, the right AG, the right top state court mix of judges, the right "defendant", and the right land owner. You spend a lot of time and money picking the right time/spot to litigate. And you have to do it in each state. And if the legislature doesn't like the ruling at the end they can just reverse it next session. And in the end, voiding hundreds of years of law that viewed property rights as extending vertically makes it an uphill judicial argument.
FWIW - I would put the time into lobbying congress to exercise access rights to landlocked BLM. A fairly straightforward legal argument with existing court support and a variety of legislative and executive carrots and sticks that can come into play.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
I'm not so sure. It has always baffled me why the MT legislature simply hasn't made corner crossing illegal. They attempted to do it through the back-door with a bill that made drones flying over private airspace trespassing, but it never passed. (Ironically, this would have made flying an aircraft over private land trespassing, unless a person was in the aircraft.) With all the crazy things they propose if it was possible I would think they would do it.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
Wasn’t there a bill by sportsman in 2013 to make corner crossing legal? Did that set president that it is illegal?
And then in 2017 looks like a bill to increase the fines was proposed?
Adding increased penalties for corner crossing in the 2021 legislature may have seemed too much for those legislators.
RobG
Well-known member
I'm not sure what your point is. The legislature has never passed a bill making it illegal or legal.
Ellie's 2013 bill didn't pass. Tom Jacobson out of Great Falls tried to bring it up again in 2017 until some sportsmen said to not go there; it was allowed to quietly die without a hearing as far as I can tell.
Redfield's 2017 HB566, referenced in the Tribune article, was very bad for various reasons (look up absolute liability), but IMO it just changed the posting requirements and penalties and never directly addressed the situation where a person doesn't actually set foot on the land. At any rate, it didn't pass either so I'm not sure what you are saying.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
There are legal maxims that the legislature doesn’t do futile acts. (legal maxim not reality)
The 2013 bill proposed to make it legal to corner cross, by implication that means it was illegal. The legislature would not make lawful what is already lawful according to the maxim.
It could become a legal hathook for a court decision. Not a great one but in the gray area, a justice might grasp on.
The 2013 bill proposed to make it legal to corner cross, by implication that means it was illegal. The legislature would not make lawful what is already lawful according to the maxim.
It could become a legal hathook for a court decision. Not a great one but in the gray area, a justice might grasp on.
RobG
Well-known member
Oh I see. I agree and was thinking that might be one of the reasons but I've never heard a lawmaker express it publicly.
JM77
Well-known member
I'm not sure where the notion came from that requires a physical act to be in statute and specified as legal, for it to be legal.
That's just simply not the case.
It seems the Courts and the County officials won’t move forward for either side or party and it remains a grey area. I think the only way forward is to have the Legislatures agree to pay for easements across every corner which would allow a small say 6 foot easement with no motorized access. The big question would be how much to pay for each corner? If you used a starting point of $10,000 per corner, each landowner might come out with a fairly lucrative venture, especially in those large checkerboard swaths across Southern Wyoming. Though many landowners might want considerably more. As far as funding, the States could raise the money through a Conservation stamp increase for each sportsmen and force anyone using the lands like rock hounders and photographers also would be required to purchase one.
I’ve always wondered how was the railroad supposed to work when it only had every other section? Was it just assumed the federal government would allow rail to be built across its sections?
I’m also unaware of corner crossing being a settle issue in Idaho. I’m not aware of a decided court judgement on it. We do have a civil section of trespass law now in addition to criminal trespass
I’m also unaware of corner crossing being a settle issue in Idaho. I’m not aware of a decided court judgement on it. We do have a civil section of trespass law now in addition to criminal trespass
El Jason
Well-known member
Actually it’s usually the opposite. Unless an act is specifically prohibited it is deemed legal.
The Federal government wanted the railroad built, this is why they gave them the 20 mile swath of free lands. In other words, the Federal government happily gave permission and gave the award of every other section in a checkerboard fashion as an incentive to the railroad which in turn then sold most of those lands off but kept many of the mineral rights. The problem is back then access was not a cultural or political problem, everyone gave free access to access your lands in the 1800s. The issue became a bigger problem when large ranches bought up the west, fenced it off and manipulated their land holdings in order to landlock many Federal lands and the political and social constructs changed where corner hopping was viewed by landowners as trespassing.
JM77
Well-known member
Exactly! So how come we see time after time: "it's not illegal, but it's not legal either"?
It is not as big of a deal yet in Montana but Idaho’s new Civil Trespassing statute will potentially make big headaches for hunters trying to corner hop. Randy does a good job of explaining the Civil Violation at about the 14:00 minute mark in the YT link posted earlier in this thread, he also explains it in his podcast.
There are many examples of civil trespassing lawsuits. The worst potential cases could now stem from Idaho’s new trespassing law. This will make it very costly to anyone if found in Civil trespassing.
The Idaho law, written without any consultation with sportsmen and recreationists, raises the trespassing fine to $500 and makes civil trespass a strict liability offense. “ Kahle Becker, former deputy attorney general for Idaho, says that trespassers who challenge the law and then lose in court will be responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. This could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.”
Nobody wants an entire firm of highly competent lawyers from these rich landowners unleashed on you to pursue you relentlessly.
I still think a possible legislature action of compensating the landowners for an easement would be a win-win process for all sides.
www.adventure-journal.com
There are many examples of civil trespassing lawsuits. The worst potential cases could now stem from Idaho’s new trespassing law. This will make it very costly to anyone if found in Civil trespassing.
The Idaho law, written without any consultation with sportsmen and recreationists, raises the trespassing fine to $500 and makes civil trespass a strict liability offense. “ Kahle Becker, former deputy attorney general for Idaho, says that trespassers who challenge the law and then lose in court will be responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. This could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.”
Nobody wants an entire firm of highly competent lawyers from these rich landowners unleashed on you to pursue you relentlessly.
I still think a possible legislature action of compensating the landowners for an easement would be a win-win process for all sides.
Trespassing In Idaho Now Could Cost You $100,000—Or Worse
A new trespassing law, combined with a new stand your ground law, could get you shot.
www.adventure-journal.com
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
I had to look it up
45-6-203. Criminal trespass to property. (1) Except as provided in 15-7-139, 70-16-111, and 76-13-116, a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly:
(a) enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure; or
(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.
Whether crossing a corner is a “entering” someone’s property is the question but the statute exists. That is the grey area.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
For the railroad route, the railroad was given every section, I believe it was for 5 miles on each side of the line. Then every other section in a checkerboard for 20 miles beyond the 5 miles. You might have to google the specifics and it probably was a little different for each railroad because of years of grants.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 916
Wiki says several hundred yards along route and six to 40 miles of checkerboard past.
But it depends on which railroad grant.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Are you the same guy that got booted last time this argument was had? Paying landowners for easements or face their stable of highly competent lawyers sounds very familiar.It is not as big of a deal yet in Montana but Idaho’s new Civil Trespassing statute will potentially make big headaches for hunters trying to corner hop. Randy does a good job of explaining the Civil Violation at about the 14:00 minute mark in the YT link posted earlier in this thread, he also explains it in his podcast.
There are many examples of civil trespassing lawsuits. The worst potential cases could now stem from Idaho’s new trespassing law. This will make it very costly to anyone if found in Civil trespassing.
The Idaho law, written without any consultation with sportsmen and recreationists, raises the trespassing fine to $500 and makes civil trespass a strict liability offense. “ Kahle Becker, former deputy attorney general for Idaho, says that trespassers who challenge the law and then lose in court will be responsible for the plaintiff’s attorney fees. This could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.”
Nobody wants an entire firm of highly competent lawyers from these rich landowners unleashed on you to pursue you relentlessly.
I still think a possible legislature action of compensating the landowners for an easement would be a win-win process for all sides.
Trespassing In Idaho Now Could Cost You $100,000—Or Worse
A new trespassing law, combined with a new stand your ground law, could get you shot.
Paying landowners for easements across the west is cost prohibitive and logistically not possible. Period. The dollar amounts you are talking about and the negotiations required would be astronomical. It’s a minor miracle to pull off ONE access easement, let alone millions. That is not a realistic solution on a large scale. Most of the new wave of landowners would tell the state to piss off because they don’t give a damn about the money. It’s more lucrative to control the access.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Legislative history for even passed bills is a pretty weak argument these days - I see finding their intent in non-action really weak. The stronger argument are a bunch of traditional cases that extended as a matter of common law the right to a few dozen (to a few hundred in some cases) feet of “air space” over a property line.
