El Jason
Well-known member
I have. But, it’s irrelevant. We’ve had plenty of discussion about resident hunters footing the entire bill and not having to deal with NR hunters.
Whatever. Same stuff, different day.
It’s not just corner hopping…
- Thread starter ODarrow
- Start date
Whatever. Same stuff, different day.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Every bill comes with a fiscal note. Here's the legislative history:
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 6,306
It’s always time
Interesting - i wish you luck at home dealing with the same issue. I get the sense thats where your spite comes from - you have the same thing at home except worse.
Nonresidents can’t carry Wisconsin’s license burden for us
What do Wisconsin hunters and anglers love to hate most: wolves, carp or nonresident competition?
Patrick Durkin: Nonresidents can’t carry Wisconsin’s license burden - Outdoor News
For nonresidents to pay 60% of Wisconsin’s gun-license revenues (roughly $11.58 million), they would have to pay about $337 each.
www.outdoornews.com
Last edited:
Schaaf
Well-known member
And you can access that parcel if a legal method exists outside of the BMA stipulation. That only states the parcel is inaccessible from the BMA.
It’s a shitty feature but it’s always been that way.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,756
I had a warden explain it to me that when you access a BMA and violate the BMA rules you are considered to be violating the terms of permission to access the property and will be prosecuted for trespassing.
This was when I asked him specifically about BMA’s that have property prohibitions against shooting game animals that are in season by FWP rule but the landowner prohibits take on his property (I.e, “no upland bird hunting, or no waterfowl, or no mule deer hunting) that are in the BMA rules.
He explained you would not be cited for taking game out of season because the FWP season was open.
Something else to keep in mind is that this year nearly all BMA’s are registered so that a conviction for violating FWP rules or law or terms of BMA permission carries a 1 year ban for accessing all registered BMA’s for a first conviction, a three year ban for a second conviction and a lifetime ban for a third conviction. Previously violations and bans were limited to being forbidden to access the BMA on which the violations occurred.
I would expect failure to sign in before hunting to be something that will be prosecuted more diligently in the future.
Email the county recorder and ask for any certificates of survey, or corner records for those sections. If nothing, you can get the GLO survey notes for the township from the BLM office in Billings.
I would assume that it has been surveyed. Either the state would’ve had a survey, or it would’ve surveyed after a private transaction at some point would be my guess.
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,153
I'm interested how you define worse.....or if you actually read the article.Interesting - i wish you luck at home dealing with the same issue. I get the sense thats where your spite comes from - you have the same thing at home except worse.
Nonresidents can’t carry Wisconsin’s license burden for us
What do Wisconsin hunters and anglers love to hate most: wolves, carp or nonresident competition?www.wdtimes.com
Patrick Durkin: Nonresidents can’t carry Wisconsin’s license burden - Outdoor News
For nonresidents to pay 60% of Wisconsin’s gun-license revenues (roughly $11.58 million), they would have to pay about $337 each.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Agreed Gerald. Just one thing different from what that warden told you, but they would more likely cite for hunting without permission.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,756
Yes. That’s a more accurate description.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Here’s an interesting one with a number of questions related to legalities and risk involved. I saw a truck pulled off the interstate with two hunters in full gear looking like they were going to walk into this from the freeway. I can only assume they were planning to also corner cross into the larger section. Differences I see here from the WY case in addition to being 9th vs. 10th circuit:
- State Trust Lands vs. Federal. Can we assume MT gets to set their own rules about corner crossing from State land to State land?
- Private road cutting through the middle of the larger parcel. Even if you can legally corner cross, can you legally cross a private road cutting though State land?
- Parking and entering from the interstate. I was told by a trooper in UT that this is not allowed, despite there being a place on I-80 where this is commonly done and they even have makeshift parking area and a dirt bridge over the barrier fence to facilitate it.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,705
Is that BLM land adjacent to the state?
I wouldn’t necessarily believe the private road designation, unless you know it is.
I’ve seen many times old logging roads on national forest marked as private when they’re clearly not. They’re fully on NF and no private land for miles.
Not saying that’s the case here, but I don’t always believe that designation.
I’ve seen many times old logging roads on national forest marked as private when they’re clearly not. They’re fully on NF and no private land for miles.
Not saying that’s the case here, but I don’t always believe that designation.
And when I look at that spot on OnX, the yellow parcel to the left is marked as State of Montana.
Not sure what’s going on there. Either mis colored or mis labeled. If it’s public then no corner crossing is needed.
Still not sure about the legality of accessing from the interstate.
Not sure what’s going on there. Either mis colored or mis labeled. If it’s public then no corner crossing is needed.
Still not sure about the legality of accessing from the interstate.
