Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

Elky Welky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Messages
988
Location
Montana
Press Release today:

Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Public Land & Water Access Association partner to secure durable solution for 871,000 acres of public lands

Helena, MT—On May 14, 2026, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) and the Public Land & Water Access Association (PLWA) jointly filed a legal complaint in Lewis and Clark County District Court in an effort to cement the legality of corner crossing in Montana, and ensure access for all Americans to approximately 871,000 acres of public lands in Montana. BHA and PLWA brought forward the legal action guided by the firm belief that access to public lands and respect for private property rights can go hand in hand.

For generations, Montanans have corner crossed, the act of stepping between two parcels of public land at a shared corner—without touching private land—to access their public lands to hunt, fish, and recreate without ever being found guilty of trespass. And, for decades, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) wardens have been explicitly instructed not to issue citations for individuals who access public lands in this manner. Despite this long-standing precedent, FWP recently issued unilateral administrative guidance declaring corner crossing unlawful, and in a major reversal from previous guidance, has instructed its wardens to issue citations for criminal trespass or hunting without landowner permission to anyone who accesses public land this way. BHA and PLWA contend that is an overreach of administrative authority, and the lawsuit challenges it directly.

“It doesn’t matter what side of the barbed wire, or political aisle you stand on, we are all public land owners with a vested interest in our public lands," said Ryan Callaghan, BHA President and CEO. “Corner crossing while respecting private property is a practical ‘middle ground’ that the vast majority of Montanans support. Shutting the public out of 871,000 acres of public lands is not.”

Representatives from BHA and PLWA have met with FWP several times on this issue and continue to advocate for a commonsense, collaborative solution that ensures private property is respected and public lands are not unlawfully enclosed. However, absent a constructive path forward from the state, BHA and PLWA are prepared to continue through the legal process to secure a durable resolution.

“Montanans deserve clear, consistent guidance on how they can access their public lands,” said Alex Leone, Executive Director for PLWA. “There is a commonsense path that respects private property while ensuring public lands aren’t effectively blocked. We’ve worked in good faith to find that solution and remain ready to do so.”

This filing reflects a deliberate effort to keep the issue grounded in law and process rather than politics, ensuring clear direction for accessing Montana’s public lands—the cornerstone of Montana’s outdoor heritage and way of life.

"Though not an attack on the agency overall, as both BHA and PLWA are currently defending FWP as intervenors in separate litigation, we fundamentally disagree with the Department on this issue and believe this must now be decided before a neutral court,” said Jake Schwaller, Chair of the Montana Chapter of BHA. “There comes a time when we simply need to stand up for our public land, and this is our time."

About Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America’s outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting through education and work on behalf of wild public lands, waters, and wildlife.

About the Public Land Water Access Association
The Public Land Water Access Association is dedicated to maintaining, restoring, and perpetuating public access to the boundaries of all Montana’s public lands and waters.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...nt-the-legality-of-corner-crossing-in-montana
 
As someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of the legal system, how does this work in terms of timeline, and what were the pros and cons?

I guess what I am asking is if this was an option all along, was the fact that nobody had done it before just based on the risk of a judge ruling against, or were they waiting for an explicit proclamation of illegality/unlawfulness from a State Agency?

My gut reaction is this is great. Let's get to the bottom of this, and being able to argue the hypothetical situation of a corner crossing done right, as opposed to a real world case where things may have been done wrong, seems the best
way to go about it.
 
I hope we win.
God speed, good sirs and madams.
*Deep Sigh moment*

I really like the way Cal said that quote.
 
As someone who doesn't have a deep understanding of the legal system, how does this work in terms of timeline, and what were the pros and cons?

I guess what I am asking is if this was an option all along, was the fact that nobody had done it before just based on the risk of a judge ruling against, or were they waiting for an explicit proclamation of illegality/unlawfulness from a State Agency?

My gut reaction is this is great. Let's get to the bottom of this, and being able to argue the hypothetical situation of a corner crossing done right, as opposed to a real world case where things may have been done wrong, seems the best
way to go about it.
Be patient, Grasshopper. All will be revealed in due time. Meanwhile, send your support to those organizations who are doing the heavy lifting.
 
I guess what I am asking is if this was an option all along, was the fact that nobody had done it before just based on the risk of a judge ruling against, or were they waiting for an explicit proclamation of illegality/unlawfulness from a State Agency?
To be clear - im no legal expert either.

The testimony that Michael Volesky gave shed light on the fact that it was previously discretionarily enforced with the individual circumstances. Which is reflective of what i have heard and read here and elsewhere.

It wasnt until this admin where there has been such a clear message - that its simply "illegal" - notably after the Iron Bar case. I think the first time the admin made this declaration was 2 years ago? A lawsuit then would have been nice i guess 😁, but prior to that I dont think such an opportunity existed.
 
i'm all for it. reasons BHA gets my money.

however, what are the actual grounds for suing? or is a "legal complaint" different from a lawsuit?

can you sue over an opinion and directive when nothing has yet actually happened? like a citation?
 
I’m sure we’ll hear more, but yes you can ask a court to rule on an issue before there is a controversy (I.e. ticket) if the possibility of prosecution is doing harm. What was needed was a strong statement or declaration of legal status. I think we got that yesterday.
 
Back
Top