FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Gerald Martin]

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term "hunt" has the same meaning as provided in 87-6-101 and includes entering private land to:
(a) retrieve wildlife; or
(b) access public land to hunt.

@El Jason, I erased most of your previous post because I have an observation and question about section 5.

It seems to me that MT FWP is likely using (b) of section 5 to justify their claim that corner crossing is illegal. Is this your opinion as well?


Tangentially, if this logic is why FWP says corner crossing is illegal then corner crossing to access public lands for any other purpose than hunting such as fishing, hiking, gathering bird watching, photography,etc… is specifically legal since it is not hunting.

I can see areas in MT code that aren’t exactly the same as WY law in regards to accessing federal public lands. However, can state law trump federal statutes in regards to access to federal lands?

I can see that a corner crossing of state to state or state to federal can be looked at differently than the WY case and that there’s probably going to have to be further court cases to determine specifics of different circumstances.

I’m betting than in MT we’ll be seeing more legislation during the next session that focuses on trying to outlaw corner crossing in all cases.

This fight in the legislature and courts isn’t finished yet in my opinion.

 

[mtmuley]

I get the push for corner crossing and am all for the opportunity. But when it becomes the norm, the previously inaccessible land will be just like any other public and pounded by hunters. mtmuley

 

[El Jason]

@El Jason, I erased most of your previous post because I have an observation and question about section 5.

It seems to me that MT FWP is likely using (b) of section 5 to justify their claim that corner crossing is illegal. Is this your opinion as well?

Yes. That’s why I specifically mentioned it earlier.

Tangentially, if this logic is why FWP says corner crossing is illegal then corner crossing to access public lands for any other purpose than hunting such as fishing, hiking, gathering bird watching, photography,etc… is specifically legal since it is not hunting.

Unless the corner is posted and the 9th circuit agrees it’s a trespass to cross a corner. It’s interesting to note the criminal trespass statute requires both a mental state of knowingly and an obligation by the landowner to mark their private property. The hunt without permission statute doesn’t require either. Not only is it strict liability, but the burden of knowledge for property ownership is now on the person and not the landowner.

I can see areas in MT code that aren’t exactly the same as WY law in regards to accessing federal public lands. However, can state law trump federal statutes in regards to access to federal lands?

State law can be more restrictive than federal, so long as it is not in conflict with federal law.

I can see that a corner crossing of state to state or state to federal can be looked at differently than the WY case and that there’s probably going to have to be further court cases to determine specifics of different circumstances.

Possibly but not likely.

I’m betting than in MT we’ll be seeing more legislation during the next session that focuses on trying to outlaw corner crossing in all cases.

This fight in the legislature and courts isn’t finished yet in my opinion.

I would expect to see something. Sponsored by UPOm no less.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would expect to see something. Sponsored by UPOm no less.

Something like this will be the most significant piece of legislation likely to come out of the next session.

We should probably be preparing for it now.

 

[BuzzH]

I get the push for corner crossing and am all for the opportunity. But when it becomes the norm, the previously inaccessible land will be just like any other public and pounded by hunters. mtmuley

Then the places they used to hunt will have fewer hunters. How it works.