FWP lies about Corner Crossing

I think folks are imagining that landlocked public parcels are providing more wildlife sanctuary than they actually are.
I don’t see how they wouldn’t be providing sanctuary much like private. Like i said, I fully support full legalization of it, but I can’t help but be concerned under our current management philosophy.
 
I can see both sides of this issue. First, public having access to public, pretty straight forward. On the other side I can see where private property owners don't want it because folks won't do the right thing and stay on public. There are instances of the latter happening all the time where people "corner cross" and don't stay on public. More so when the corner is in a nightmare spot to cross and when there are no fences at all, defining every single boundary/corner. Folks end up taking a lot of liberty, and I can see where the conflicts can happen. Tough issue and specifically here in Montana a very contentious one.
 
On the other side I can see where private property owners don't want it because folks won't do the right thing and stay on public.
Wonder what the prosecutor/police would say if i called and said that someone had put their foot over my property?

I imagine theyd laugh and hang up, just like they should in this case too.

The reason theres an uproar - folks assumed based on history that checkerboarded public land was exclusive access. Maybe they even paid for it under that premise.
 
Wonder what the prosecutor/police would say if i called and said that someone had put their foot over my property?
Entirely depends on the prosecutor. County Attorneys in MT are elected politicians. If the landowner makes enough noise about it, and happens to be an influential voting constituent, then the CA might file charges regardless.

Since we're using you as an example though, you are probably right. They would just laugh at you and do nothing. ;)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
117,528
Messages
2,159,743
Members
38,257
Latest member
squillbilly
Back
Top