FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Rack Daniels]

I would have to imagine if the public gets sold off to private interests that the govt subsidies would go away to it? It’s sold; not govt owned ie not public, right??

 

[Elky Welky]

I would have to imagine if the public gets sold off to private interests that the govt subsidies would go away to it? It’s sold; not govt owned ie not public, right??

Depends on the industry, right? But I was saying they only have to sell the already accessible sections. If a bunch of checkerboard is completely landlocked, then we’d still be subsidizing the leased, landlocked land.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I see what you’re saying now. Bullshit game because if they buy up public lands to create one big border around all the remaining checkerboard, it should be included in the sale or an easement procured.

 

[Elky Welky]

The lie continues with the new FWP director:

FWP: Grizzlies are still listed, corner-crossing still illegal

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is anticipating a federal decision to transfer full responsibility for grizzly bears to the state and continues to consider corner-crossing to be trespassing, according to FWP’s director.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[El Jason]

Is expressing an opinion a lie? I get your point, but let’s get real. It’s hyperbole. She said they “still consider” it to be trespassing. It’s a departmental opinion, nothing more and nothing less. It is, correctly or incorrectly derived from a decades old Montana AG opinion on the issue.

For the record, I simply can’t see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of a landowner on this issue.

 

[Elky Welky]

Is expressing an opinion a lie? I get your point, but let’s get real. It’s hyperbole. She said they “still consider” it to be trespassing. It’s a departmental opinion, nothing more and nothing less. It is, correctly or incorrectly derived from a decades old Montana AG opinion on the issue.

For the record, I simply can’t see the 9th circuit ruling in favor of a landowner on this issue.

It intentionally misleads and is more than just an opinion. As the head of an agency that has some law enforcement capability, she must be more careful and not express baseless opinions that carry legal ramifications. This one in particular is meant to deter the public from exercising their rights.

Tough to tell how the 9th would rule. I’d like to agree with you, but they’ve made some weird decisions lately regarding allowing troops in cities.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is expressing an opinion a lie?

“We will still consider corner-crossing trespassing in Montana”

Whats the legal basis for that? Its not simply an "opinion" when the ramifications are what they are when she says that.

If your local sheriff had the unfounded legal "opinion" that you situationally had no right to self defense - that wouldnt bother you?

 

[El Jason]

“We will still consider corner-crossing trespassing in Montana”

Whats the legal basis for that? Its not simply an "opinion" when the ramifications are what they are when she says that.

If your local sheriff had the unfounded legal "opinion" that you situationally had no right to self defense - that wouldnt bother you?

I told you. There is a decades old Montana AG opinion specifically referring to corner crossing as a trespass

The Director restating “they consider” it is a departmental opinion. It does not make her a liar, and labeling her as such isn’t really a productive way to open dialogue.

 

[El Jason]

It intentionally misleads and is more than just an opinion. As the head of an agency that has some law enforcement capability, she must be more careful and not express baseless opinions that carry legal ramifications. This one in particular is meant to deter the public from exercising their rights.

Tough to tell how the 9th would rule. I’d like to agree with you, but they’ve made some weird decisions lately regarding allowing troops in cities.

It’s not baseless. I’m not saying it’s accurate, particularly given recent legal events. But, calling it baseless is a lie on your part, unless you’re stating an opinion. See what I did there?

 

[Rack Daniels]

 

[Elky Welky]

It’s not baseless. I’m not saying it’s accurate, particularly given recent legal events. But, calling it baseless is a lie on your part, unless you’re stating an opinion. See what I did there?

I do haha. And it is my opinion that her claim is baseless, as it is neither supported by law nor fact. Which would be the definition of baseless. I’m also not someone who subscribes to wasting words and writing things like “well in my opinion.” If I’m writing it, then obviously it’s my opinion.

The difference being, I’m just some guy on a hunting forum with—at least here—no obligation to the public to root my opinions in law and fact (even though I personally feel bound to do so, for the sake of my own integrity).

Honest question: would you also then say all lies are actually just opinions?

(Cue a meme of The Dude).

 

[rogerthat]

So are they going to issue hunting without permission tickets off this “opinion”? I think that’s the only thing that matters.

 

[BuzzH]

So are they going to issue hunting without permission tickets off this “opinion”? I think that’s the only thing that matters.

That's where I'm at, what statute would they cite for stepping from public to public? There is no intent to trespass to hunt, so that's out. We know how civil and criminal is likely going to go with a jury.

I think there's a lot of butt-hurt in the MTFWP headquarters and AG office over the case in Wyoming and they're acting like petulant children that aren't getting their way.

 

[El Jason]

Hunting without permission is a strict liability offense with no need to prove intent.

87-6-415. Failure to obtain landowner's permission for hunting, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

 

[BuzzH]

Hunting without permission is a strict liability offense with no need to prove intent.

87-6-415. Failure to obtain landowner's permission for hunting, MCA

archive.legmt.gov

Right, but what offense have you committed stepping from public to public? I don't need permission to hunt public land.

 

[El Jason]

Right, but what offense have you committed stepping from public to public? I don't need permission to hunt public land.

Nothing, unless the 9th circuit decides they disagree with the 10th.

It is noteworthy the last portion of the MCA I referenced specifically includes accessing public land into the act of hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

Nothing, unless the 9th circuit decides they disagree with the 10th.

It is noteworthy the last portion of the MCA I referenced specifically includes accessing public land into the act of hunting.

As it should. The meaning there is you can't cross private property to reach landlocked public. That's no different in Wyoming.

Says nothing about stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land over a corner to hunt. That action does not meet the threshold of trespassing to hunt in Montana under the title you referenced.

 

[El Jason]

As it should. The meaning there is you can't cross private property to reach landlocked public. That's no different in Wyoming.

Says nothing about stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land over a corner to hunt. That action does not meet the threshold of trespassing to hunt in Montana under the title you referenced.

Again, I’m not disagreeing with you. I personally don’t see how corner crossing constitutes a trespass.

However, the 9th Circuit could disagree with us and the 10th.

 

[BuzzH]

Again, I’m not disagreeing with you. I personally don’t see how corner crossing constitutes a trespass.

However, the 9th Circuit could disagree with us and the 10th.

Doubtful, as a best case, if it's tried in the 9th the same as it was in the 10th. The 10th ruled 3-0 and the USSC isn't indicating they were wrong about the ruling.

Lets make no mistake, Montana FWP and the AG office are shitting their pants clinging to an opinion with a feeble attempt to claim corner crossing is trespass to hunt.

Its laughable and pathetic.

 

[rogerthat]

Doubtful, as a best case, if it's tried in the 9th the same as it was in the 10th. The 10th ruled 3-0 and the USSC isn't indicating they were wrong about the ruling.

Lets make no mistake, Montana FWP and the AG office are shitting their pants clinging to an opinion with a feeble attempt to claim corner crossing is trespass to hunt.

Its laughable and pathetic.

Got to keep the good ol boys happy.