Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[elkduds]

Already BHA member, just joined PLWA. It was easy, and they even accepted a Colorado greenie.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

Hypothetical - but if the 9th circuit were to rule against this lawsuit - would the supreme court be more likely to take this case or the iron bar case and rule on it?

This is in state court. Only way the 9th circuit would hear it is if the state removes it to federal court.

While they mention the UIA, they don’t appear to make any claims under federal law so I’m not sure there’s a good basis for removal.

 

[SAJ-99]

Hypothetical - but if the 9th circuit were to rule against this lawsuit - would the supreme court be more likely to take this case or the iron bar case and rule on it?

@Elky Welky can correct me but we are a long way from that. This is a state court issue. First ? Is if we get injunctive relief. Someone would have to challenge to change venues to federal court?

To muse on the question. I think this SCOTUS is most likely to say something along the lines of “this was a problem created by government actions so it needs to be fixed the governments action” and side with private property.

I still think it is an issue of whether you can prosecute someone for violating airspace without a claim to damages. This has been in question since the invention of the airplane. That is what violates the UIA.

 

[Alpine01]

@Elky Welky can correct me but we are a long way from that. This is a state court issue. First ? Is if we get injunctive relief. Someone would have to challenge to change venues to federal court?

My guess would be an appeal to the 9th regardless of how the state court rules as either losing side will want to get a higher opinion/clarity. If 9th upholds/rules that CC is illegal, now you have a conflict between the 10th and the 9th and SCOTUS would have to settle it, assuming the aggrieved parties choose to pursue it that far. This is going to be a several-year process in all likelihood. Just my $0.02 though.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Just got an email from BHA regarding proposal to change Montana State land exchange policy, from the email:

“At 9 am on Monday, May 18 in Helena, the Montana Board of Land Commissioners will consider sweeping revisions to the State's Land Exchange Policy that could significantly impact public land access, checkerboarded lands, access to public waters, and the future management of Montana's state trust lands.



The meeting agenda states:

"Commissioner Brown moved to place the following policy changes on the agenda to address increased conflicts associated with the management of state lands including for example water disputes or corner crossing issues."


Take action link here: https://backcountryhunters.acemlnb....a7_0Ey7wuZw2O3m-NFfx2YwXHbLMnme6638y.xGUuhy2k

 

[Forkyfinder]

Just got an email from BHA regarding proposal to change Montana State land exchange policy, from the email:

“At 9 am on Monday, May 18 in Helena, the Montana Board of Land Commissioners will consider sweeping revisions to the State's Land Exchange Policy that could significantly impact public land access, checkerboarded lands, access to public waters, and the future management of Montana's state trust lands.



The meeting agenda states:

"Commissioner Brown moved to place the following policy changes on the agenda to address increased conflicts associated with the management of state lands including for example water disputes or corner crossing issues."


Take action link here: https://backcountryhunters.acemlnb....a7_0Ey7wuZw2O3m-NFfx2YwXHbLMnme6638y.xGUuhy2k

New policy to give consultants more power in state land exchange

A Montana Land Board proposal would streamline the state land exchange policy, but some sportsmen are concerned it will enable only rich landowners to the detriment of regular Montanans.

missoulacurrent.com

Insurance in case corner crossing doesnt go a certain way? Better ram rod those land swaps through....

 

[R.K.]

Just got an email from BHA regarding proposal to change Montana State land exchange policy, from the email:

“At 9 am on Monday, May 18 in Helena, the Montana Board of Land Commissioners will consider sweeping revisions to the State's Land Exchange Policy that could significantly impact public land access, checkerboarded lands, access to public waters, and the future management of Montana's state trust lands.



The meeting agenda states:

"Commissioner Brown moved to place the following policy changes on the agenda to address increased conflicts associated with the management of state lands including for example water disputes or corner crossing issues."


Take action link here: https://backcountryhunters.acemlnb....a7_0Ey7wuZw2O3m-NFfx2YwXHbLMnme6638y.xGUuhy2k

I think that makes sense now. They want to push through land swaps, so they determine corner crossing is illegal, and therefore causes conflict, and opens up certain lands to disposal or swaps. Just feels like a shady way to push through stealing public lands from the public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I think that makes sense now. They want to push through land swaps, so they determine corner crossing is illegal, and therefore causes conflict, and opens up certain lands to disposal or swaps. Just feels like a shady way to push through stealing public lands from the public.

Gotta get in on it before the parameters change (corner crossing is legal) and get your stake in public property before its too late and your bargaining power is greatly diminished.

I can see how a group behind this effort would also have a "neutral" position on corner crossing.

Is it still fashionable to critique orgs that have a "neutral" position on HT?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Wish i could go.

If youre in the Helena area, please do.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Gotta get in on it before the parameters change (corner crossing is legal) and get your stake in public property before its too late and your bargaining power is greatly diminished.

I can see how a group behind this effort would also have a "neutral" position on corner crossing.

Is it still fashionable to critique orgs that have a "neutral" position on HT?

Probably be more effective to have a conversation on the phone than just calling out orgs and people online.

 

[antlerradar]

Gotta get in on it before the parameters change (corner crossing is legal) and get your stake in public property before its too late and your bargaining power is greatly diminished.

I can see how a group behind this effort would also have a "neutral" position on corner crossing.

Is it still fashionable to critique orgs that have a "neutral" position on HT?

The Corner Crossing lawsuit is an in your face to many landowers. Might be just what is needed to gain access in the checker board, but your are going to burn a lot of bridges along the way. If an access organization is focused on bringing both landowners and sportsman closer together to improve access, having a neutral position is likely best.

 

[Straight Arrow]

In the context of the corner crossing issue, there is really no "neutral" position. If an organization wishes to avoid the issue and remain "neutral" ... then they must just ignore it and deal with other issues. Recognizing that, I would say that if an organization is concerned about public land access issues, PLT, and other prominent public land issues, then the term "neutral" is completely inappropriate and inapplicable!

 

[Wildabeest]

The Corner Crossing lawsuit is an in your face to many landowers. Might be just what is needed to gain access in the checker board, but your are going to burn a lot of bridges along the way. If an access organization is focused on bringing both landowners and sportsman closer together to improve access, having a neutral position is likely best.

I’d say the Director’s “in your face” (and legally incorrect) statement necessitates a “back in your face” response. The lawsuit isn’t against landowners, it’s against the State of Montana.

 

[Gerald Martin]

In the context of the corner crossing issue, there is really no "neutral" position. If an organization wishes to avoid the issue and remain "neutral" ... then they must just ignore it and deal with other issues. Recognizing that, I would say that if an organization is concerned about public land access issues, PLT, and other prominent public land issues, then the term "neutral" is completely inappropriate and inapplicable!

Does anyone really expect the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wild Sheep Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Wild Turkey Federation, etc.. to weigh in on this issue? Some issues are beyond the mission statement of an organization regardless of what we would prefer their position to be.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I hope they all take a stance. The people that will benefit from public access will far outnumber the group of large landowners….

But I agree, it makes the most sense to remain neutral when you have constituents on both sides of the fence…