FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Straight Arrow]

Legal consideration needs to include public rights just as it does private property rights. Some folks seem to think only private landowners have legitimate claims for legal protection.

Case on point will be heard in district court in Bozeman next Wednesday. Gallatin River protective nonprofit group is suing Gallatin County and private property owner to repeal floodplain permit for private property development of a sixty unit glampground on sixteen acres mostly in the floodplain of the Blue Ribbon Trout Stream and highly valued treasure of the Treasure State, the West Gallatin River. This case is clearly about public rights to a clean and healthful environment, with protection of floodplain on private property to deny potential development adversely impacting Montana's waters.

It could be and obviously has been argued that denying corner crossing is adversely impacting public rights to access public property. It's that simple.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I just don't get it. Why is one landowner's property rights more "sacrosanct" than the property rights of several hundred million Americans who own the BLM land in the checkerboard?

I must say, most "conservatives" in Montana have adopted being a selfish asshole as part of their cultural identity. Curious thing is they also proudly claim to identify themselves as right wing fanatic Christians. Man, what kind of Sunday school did they attend?

 

[Elky Welky]

First, there are two laws in Montana regarding corner crossing. One is civil based on trespass being a strict liability tort and the other is MCA 45-6-203(1)(b).

Under the civil trespass any time any person enters your property without your permission even if they do not physically damage your property they may be liable for trespass. No matter how small a portion of your land they touch for even a brief moment…they may be liable for trespass. The strict liability damage for civil trespass is the presence on the property not any pecuniary loss.

Under MCA 45-6-203(1)(b), a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly…enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.

Premises is defined as “real property” under MCA 45-2-101(60).

It is not just about “airspace” which you can trespass upon. An example would be Andy throwing a ball over and across Bob’s property to Chris. That is a trespass by Andy and Chris because the ball is passing through Bob’s airspace even though Bob is not suffering any pecuniary damage.

The issue that I see is that property lines are definite and infinitely thin in actuality, while GPS and fence lines are blurry. Which means that while you may not intend to step foot onto someone’s property you likely will when you cross a corner.

Simply knowingly “entering” someone’s property is enough under the statute. Thus, if you knowingly cross a corner and your gps takes you one, two, three, or more feet onto someone’s property then you may be civilly or criminally liable.

As a Montanan I’ll skip my rant about out of staters…

Corner crossing is not as gray as some think. As of right now anyone that enters someone else’s property no matter how ephemeral their time is, they may be criminally charged or civilly liable. Also, trespass allows for attorney fees. So, if you are civilly liable you’ll have to cough up for the land owners lawyer too.

That is just my interpretation.

I support corner crossing. I also support the right to exclude people from your private property.

Good Luck

I actually greatly really appreciate this post; it shows how some Montana judges and prosecutors could interpret Montana law, and if that is the way they choose to go, it will be for the State Supreme Court to decide if this is a correct interpretation of it. It also includes the caveat that this is just his interpretation of it. Welcome to hunt talk @aforslund!

But these are laws regarding trespass, not corner crossing. There is no law on the books specific to corner crossing, but these are all valid points with regards to trespass. The legislature rejected legislation about corner crossing ten years ago, and questions of "airspace" also haven't been decided here. As I pointed out at the very beginning: FWP is making up bright-line law here to fit their purpose, but they lack the authority to do so without statute or case law. It would be more appropriate for them to interpret it as you did here: with the use of "may." Corner crossing "may be illegal," but it is not "illegal." So while deciding it, easements, eminent domain, and all the other avenues come into play and should be discussed.

We, the public, pay taxes on public lands. A private landowner declaring they have exclusive access to public land is theft from the public, and stepping outside of any legal argument and into the realm of purely what is right and wrong:

Is it not exceptionally petty to think someone stepping through a fraction of air is somehow causing anyone harm? Is there a place for common sense and decency here?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Is there a place for common sense and decency here?

It is coffee and joint Friday…

 

[SAJ-99]

What a first post.

Yeah, we don’t need facts in this place.

 

[nrpate05]

Having very little familiarity with Montana, I would think FWP just doesn't want to deal with the fallout of having folks corner cross and it becoming a court case, etc. It is certainly disingenuous and not an excuse for saying it is "unlawful" when it cleary isn't.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I see Hank is still out on sick leave and Dustin Temple is currently acting FWP mouthpiece. Thought I'd do a bit of research on him. Couldn't find much except that he has moved throughout eastern Montana seventeen times since 2001, starting in Billings and now in Harrison. Seems he has been with FWP since about 2013.

I see from Hank's posted biography that his chief qualification for becoming a head shed guy in FWP was ten years as a Marine. I guess that should have qualified him to lead FWP. Proves he must have been successful at following orders and not thinking for himself.

 

[Elky Welky]

Having very little familiarity with Montana, I would think FWP just doesn't want to deal with the fallout of having folks corner cross and it becoming a court case, etc. It is certainly disingenuous and not an excuse for saying it is "unlawful" when it cleary isn't.

Sadly, I think they are smarter than that, and they knew that reversing course and taking a stance as they have will most likely force this issue further. There will inevitably be hunters crossing corners this fall, and FWP seems poised to aggressively seek prosecutions to try and get rulings in favor of private interests.

I can't help but think they know exactly what they are doing. They have an AG that is anti-public (who is on the record stating that people from California, Washington and Oregon deserve their piece of Montana, and that he will never support any public land acquisitions) and he will fight hard in the Supreme Court when one of these cases makes it there. They have legislators that are also anti-public (see Sen. Hinebaugh's recent statements in the paper "if people want public land, they should move to Russia, China, or Venezuela"), who could easily use their supermajority in the next session to ban corner crossing. And they have a governor that recently vetoed a bill that would fund public access, and who has a history of blocking legal public access to streams (and a Lieutenant Gov. who ran for the state supreme court a few years back on an anti-public access platform).

The governor, most recently, has displayed a willingness to flaunt the state constitution and veto bills without allowing the legislature to override, and FWP is probably following suit here: why give the people the power to do anything when you can simply declare what the law is and prosecute at will? Who needs to follow process when the people in charge aren't following process either?

With all the levers of power tipping in favor of private interests, FWP can recklessly proceed in this vein as well with few repercussions (other than the ire of public land advocates; but who cares about them? They don't have money and power). This is a dangerous time in Montana, the Copper Kings are back.

 

[rogerthat]

If Montana’s supermajority were to pass an anti corner crossing law would that provide an opportunity for suit under the UIA and supremacy clause to get this to a court for clarification? If not, it seems to me that’s what will happen in Montana with a supermajority that is slanted toward private property rights vs public property rights

 

[Beignet]

Don't Texas My Montana.

That's it. I'm finally going to get some bumper stickers made.

 

[OntarioHunter]

That's it. I'm finally going to get some bumper stickers made.

I've always hated bumper stickers but I'll buy one of those!

 

[Hunting Wife]

I do not want this to become a flame war. So, while adverse possession, prescriptive easements, eminent domain, etc., are interesting topics they do not change the corner crossing issue. Those topics do not alter the fact that property rights in this country and in Montana are sacrosanct.

Good Luck

I agree. But in corner situations, the public landowner owns an equal share of the property at the corner as the private landowners do…same amount of land, same amount of air space. The private property rights should not trump or outweigh the equal share of public property rights.

It seems to me those corners should hold common rights for all property owners in a way that allows reasonable use while preventing unreasonable taking by all parties involved, not just one portion of the landowners.

 

[Beignet]

I've always hated bumper stickers but I'll buy one of those!

This is a public service so I'll just send one for free to the first eight people that send me their address.

 

[Elky Welky]

If Montana’s supermajority were to pass an anti corner crossing law would that provide an opportunity for suit under the UIA and supremacy clause to get this to a court for clarification? If not, it seems to me that’s what will happen in Montana with a supermajority that is slanted toward private property rights vs public property rights

I really don't know what the next steps would be there. Defining criminal laws typically falls squarely in the realm of the State. That said, much of this is Federal public lands we are talking about (such as it was in the WY case). We may well find ourselves in a strange place where corner crossing onto state lands is illegal and federal lands is legal, but the WY case is in the 10th circuit, so even on appeal it won't have any bearing in MT. The only way for us to have any defining ruling would be a case in MT or another state that falls within 9th circuit jurisdiction. Or... the WY case makes it all the way to SCOTUS, which is a long shot.

 

[Eric Albus]

The only reason there's any living breathing furry animals anywhere in the state is because of the few places the hunting is restricted (mostly private or blocked access).

As good as being able to access more public is for hunting - the net result in MT will be way, WAY more piss pounded public land.

Back to crossbow use impacts..

This.

Give the public unfettered access to the last mule deer in Montana and they would slaughter it. Citing “well, the next guy would just kill it so may as well be ME”.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This.

Give the public unfettered access to the last mule deer in Montana and they would slaughter it. Citing “well, the next guy would just kill it so may as well be ME”.

So no access... because they will kill all the animals... and the folks saying no access are also voting no on shortening seasons and reducing quotas.

Yeahhhhh.... rains got a real weird smell today

 

[BuckRut]

This.

Give the public unfettered access to the last mule deer in Montana and they would slaughter it. Citing “well, the next guy would just kill it so may as well be ME”.

If the FWP would collect actual meaningful harvest data and manage tag numbers for the good of the animals and not the people with the power and money who has access to what is not a problem. This logic is like saying that instead of parents taking responsibility for how much candy their kids eat we should just lock up all the candy where only rich people can get it.

 

[DFS]

So no access... because they will kill all the animals... and the folks saying no access are also voting no on shortening seasons and reducing quotas.

Yeahhhhh.... rains got a real weird smell today

Quotas? Those sound nice how can we get those for mule deer bucks. I guess it’s only fair that everyone’s mule deer hunting sucks. Good luck to all those hopping corners. What company is making lightweight packable ladders?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Quotas? Those sound nice how can we get those for mule deer bucks. I guess it’s only fair that everyone’s mule deer hunting sucks. Good luck to all those hopping corners. What company is making lightweight packable ladders?

“Population objectives”

Better?

 

[BuzzH]

So no access... because they will kill all the animals... and the folks saying no access are also voting no on shortening seasons and reducing quotas.

Yeahhhhh.... rains got a real weird smell today

That's a game management issue, not an access issue...hopefully Eric understands the difference.