FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Elky Welky]

Knowing that specific corner on G/T and Sangray, hopefully no one tries to use this case as the MT litmus test for corner crossing. This is not the one to do it on. No GoFundMe or anything. If Sangray is found guilty, the AG’s will crow about how this is proof that corner crossing is an illegal taking and trespass of private property rights. BHA and others need to actually read the article and realize there’s likely proof Sangray actually trespassed, not corner crossed. This is not the Elk Mountain case.

Again, a newspaper article and what the AGs say to reporters is not evidence. He's entitled to a presumption of innocence, and only a jury will decide what proof the AG has. BHA hasn't set up a GoFundMe or anything else, but is simply watching it carefully. As all of us should, for many of the exact reasons you outlined here. Don't assume BHA and others aren't paying close attention and know quite a bit about what is happening with this one.

 

[rogerthat]

Knowing that specific corner on G/T and Sangray, hopefully no one tries to use this case as the MT litmus test for corner crossing. This is not the one to do it on. No GoFundMe or anything. If Sangray is found guilty, the AG’s will crow about how this is proof that corner crossing is an illegal taking and trespass of private property rights. BHA and others need to actually read the article and realize there’s likely proof Sangray actually trespassed, not corner crossed. This is not the Elk Mountain case.

Is the survey pin not in? Without a pin it’s anyone’s guess where exactly to cross. Who has the burden to prove this? Innocent until proven guilty I would say that would be the landowner and prosecution. I wouldn’t ever consider crossing at an unmarked corner but that’s just me

 

[Elky Welky]

Is the survey pin not in? Without a pin it’s anyone’s guess where exactly to cross. Who has the burden to prove this? Innocent until proven guilty I would say that would be the landowner and prosecution. I wouldn’t ever consider crossing at an unmarked corner but that’s just me

Yes. It's not a question. As a matter of law, that burden lies squarely with the prosecution.

I agree; I wouldn't personally cross at an unmarked corner. The risk isn't worth the reward to me, nor would I want to jeopardize it for everyone else. But here we are.

 

[antlerradar]

Knowing that specific corner on G/T and Sangray, hopefully no one tries to use this case as the MT litmus test for corner crossing. This is not the one to do it on. No GoFundMe or anything. If Sangray is found guilty, the AG’s will crow about how this is proof that corner crossing is an illegal taking and trespass of private property rights. BHA and others need to actually read the article and realize there’s likely proof Sangray actually trespassed, not corner crossed. This is not the Elk Mountain case.

What is special about this corner?

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

Again, a newspaper article and what the AGs say to reporters is not evidence. He's entitled to a presumption of innocence, and only a jury will decide what proof the AG has. BHA hasn't set up a GoFundMe or anything else, but is simply watching it carefully. As all of us should, for many of the exact reasons you outlined here. Don't assume BHA and others aren't paying close attention and know quite a bit about what is happening with this one.

I guess I’m more concerned somebody with good intentions starts a GoFundMe trying to help out. I also understand innocent until proven guilty but also know the suspect. Doubt the Attorney General charges something this minor without pretty good evidence.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

What is special about this corner?

I‘ve been to the corner. There’s a 20’ diameter cedar that appears to have grown dead center of where the corner pin would be. Have yet to see the packable ladder that would get you over that.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I‘ve been to the corner. There’s a 20’ diameter cedar that appears to have grown dead center of where the corner pin would be. Have yet to see the packable ladder that would get you over that.

That belongs in the big tree thread

 

[antlerradar]

I‘ve been to the corner. There’s a 20’ diameter cedar that appears to have grown dead center of where the corner pin would be. Have yet to see the packable ladder that would get you over that.

That would be a problem

 

[rogerthat]

I‘ve been to the corner. There’s a 20’ diameter cedar that appears to have grown dead center of where the corner pin would be. Have yet to see the packable ladder that would get you over that.

Sounds like instead of a ladder he should have taken his hedge trimmer maybe

 

[antlerradar]

I‘ve been to the corner. There’s a 20’ diameter cedar that appears to have grown dead center of where the corner pin would be. Have yet to see the packable ladder that would get you over that.

Is it too late to get in the nursery business near Elk Mountain?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Assume this is the one?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

All charges have been dropped.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

"

 

[aliqaisar]

Montana FWP misstates the law here by telling the public that corner crossing is "unlawful" based upon FAQ guidance from 2021 that has not yet been updated. To be very clear: there is no law for OR against corner crossing in Montana. This is a legal gray area which has not been decided yet. I've reached out to the department to correct this false information, but be advised that the department is providing incorrect legal advice. Advice that, in my opinion, does not favor the public land user, and those of us who pay for their salaries and work, and pay taxes on those lands.

Based upon this statement, Montana FWP is advocating that people in Montana be prosecuted if they choose to corner-cross, so you do so at your own risk. Should you be prosecuted, Montana courts could view this issue differently. The Wyoming case does not have any precedence here, although it provides excellent logic. If only FWP would listen.https://fwp.mt.gov/homepage/news/2023/jun/0601-fwp-issues-statement-on-wyoming-corner-crossing-case

"That’s frustrating to hear. Misinforming the public on something that’s still legally undecided only adds confusion and discourages lawful public land access. Hopefully FWP updates their guidance soon to reflect the actual legal situation.

 

[Elky Welky]

"That’s frustrating to hear. Misinforming the public on something that’s still legally undecided only adds confusion and discourages lawful public land access. Hopefully FWP updates their guidance soon to reflect the actual legal situation.

We will see, and I do have some hope. I was pretty impressed with our new FWP director at her confirmation hearing.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

https://montanafreepress.org/2025/0...preme-court-to-take-up-corner-crossing-issue/


Posted in the Public Lands Issues forum too. Anyone else just slightly concerned/disgusted (but unsurprised) that the chair of the Fish & Game Commission and President of MT Stockgrowers is the same person? I believe Lesley Robinson has been better than expected as a F&G Commissioner but how do you take this action as president of MT Stockgrower and be able to have any real conversations about hunting access and elk overpopulation on the F&G Commission.

 

[Gerald Martin]

https://montanafreepress.org/2025/0...preme-court-to-take-up-corner-crossing-issue/


Posted in the Public Lands Issues forum too. Anyone else just slightly concerned/disgusted (but unsurprised) that the chair of the Fish & Game Commission and President of MT Stockgrowers is the same person? I believe Lesley Robinson has been better than expected as a F&G Commissioner but how do you take this action as president of MT Stockgrower and be able to have any real conversations about hunting access and elk overpopulation on the F&G Commission.

Does one action necessarily preclude the other?

Or are you taking this as a sign that she isn’t willing to engage?


Maybe I should be asking what is the real conversation about hunting access and elk overpopulation? I have a perspective on that and I think pretty much everyone else does as well.

I do think that those two issues are fairly complex in how to solve in each location even though some basic principles are simple and could be applied to each situation.

1. Property rights are priority. For all landowners, public and private. No blocking of legal access and no forcing of access beyond a private landowners’ permission.

2. Elk overpopulation in MT is defined as “more elk than socially acceptable” rather than “beyond biological carrying capacity”. “Overpopulation” is almost always a result of landowner access policies in any given region. Hunters are the tool that FWP uses to control elk numbers.

In my opinion the best way to solve “overpopulation” would be for groups of landowners within a given locale to form access cooperatives and then either work with FWP or build access programs on their own to keep populations within “acceptable levels”.

Landowners have every right to determine what level of access they want to provide. If that level isn’t sufficient to keep elk populations within their preferred range then that’s their problem, not FWP’s or the public hunter’s problem.

 

[Elky Welky]

I agree with the above, mostly. Not sure where I land on "Access cooperatives" which seem more like a way for landowners to pool resources, lease more to outfitters, and ultimately monetize what also belongs to the public beyond public land: the public's wildlife. This model would seem to accelerate "private" herd management, which is no bueno.

No blocking of legal access and no forcing of access beyond a private landowners’ permission.

Just a point of clarification: many private landowners in Montana love to claim that the public is demanding "forced" access, but at no time has access ever been "forced," nor have advocates for Montana hunters ever demanded more than what is rightfully theirs. "Forced" is a loaded word that UPOM and its slimy ilk like to bandy about, and isn't true. Landowners have had significant resources at their disposal to allow public hunters to take elk off of their property, but they refuse to do it and then use this word "force" when they are faced with options they don't want to take, typically out of stubbornness, hatred of their fellow man, and without any real basis. It's so deeply ingrained in the lexicon that even though it has never happened, it has certainly taken root.

It's the old joke about the drowning man who keeps being offered help but saying no because "God will save him." He's first approached by a guy in a canoe, then a motorboat, and ultimately a helicopter. The guy drowns and goes to heaven and asks God why he didn't save him, and God says "I sent you a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter, what else did you expect??" The whiny UPOM types refuse the public's help but demand FWP fix their problems, and any help they could utilize they describe as "forced."

I know that's not what you were saying Gerald, but it's the UPOM special, and has even crept into your language here so I had to point it out.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I agree with the above, mostly. Not sure where I land on "Access cooperatives" which seem more like a way for landowners to pool resources, lease more to outfitters, and ultimately monetize what also belongs to the public beyond public land: the public's wildlife. This model would seem to accelerate "private" herd management, which is no bueno.


Just a point of clarification: many private landowners in Montana love to claim that the public is demanding "forced" access, but at no time has access ever been "forced," nor have advocates for Montana hunters ever demanded more than what is rightfully theirs. "Forced" is a loaded word that UPOM and its slimy ilk like to bandy about, and isn't true. Landowners have had significant resources at their disposal to allow public hunters to take elk off of their property, but they refuse to do it and then use this word "force" when they are faced with options they don't want to take, typically out of stubbornness, hatred of their fellow man, and without any real basis. It's so deeply ingrained in the lexicon that even though it has never happened, it has certainly taken root.

It's the old joke about the drowning man who keeps being offered help but saying no because "God will save him." He's first approached by a guy in a canoe, then a motorboat, and ultimately a helicopter. The guy drowns and goes to heaven and asks God why he didn't save him, and God says "I sent you a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter, what else did you expect??" The whiny UPOM types refuse the public's help but demand FWP fix their problems, and any help they could utilize they describe as "forced."

I know that's not what you were saying Gerald, but it's the UPOM special, and has even crept into your language here so I had to point it out.

Good analogy. Not too dissimilar to those in the ranching/outfitting community complaining about a cabin being built in the Crazy's on private land or complaining about American Prairie. You continually come out against public access and now act like it's absurd private property is being developed lol.

Private Property rights are absolute, regardless of when a private party does something that the ranching/outfitting community or other private property doesn't agree with that is within the law. I think this is part of being human, we all have our biases for sure. In 10 years I hope we are realizing we can't have our cake and eat it too by complaining that corner crossing has led to overcrowding on checkerboard public land . Like what do we expect if it actually gets legalized?

 

[Elky Welky]

Like what do we expect if it actually gets legalized?

Sadly, land swaps or public land sell-offs. Mike Lee's threat is still strong, and I don't think we're done fighting against a federal effort to sell public lands into private interests.

Once big landowners think their land has been devalued by corner crossers, they might start selling or buying more too. I wouldn't be surprised if they are strategic and just try to buy up single sections of public with corners to create entirely landlocked public as well. If there isn't public access to one parcel of checkerboard, the whole thing can still get locked up. Then they just have their own "private" publicly-subsidized grazing leases.