Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Gerald Martin]

I don’t recall reading anything about corner crossing in hunting regs until a few years ago.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?

This is just a random example I pulled from OnXand have no actual experience with this particular property or these sections.

But at face value I’d support that swap especially if the landowner is willing to pay the cost of getting the appraisal and paperwork done to present it before the Land Board. Just as long as the lands exchanged or consolidated are of equal and greater value and increase public access rather than reduce it.

Every piece of ground and potential swap is going to be unique and whether it’s a good deal for MT residents is going to be dependent on the particulars of each deal.

 

[huntinwithmyboy]

As a BHA member, I very much appreciate all this organization does to preserve & improve our public access!!

 

[Forkyfinder]

View attachment 408708

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?

This is just a random example I pulled from OnXand have no actual experience with this particular property or these sections.

But at face value I’d support that swap especially if the landowner is willing to pay the cost of getting the appraisal and paperwork done to present it before the Land Board. Just as long as the lands exchanged or consolidated are of equal and greater value and increase public access rather than reduce it.

Every piece of ground and potential swap is going to be unique and whether it’s a good deal for MT residents is going to be dependent on the particulars of each deal.

How useful of you gerald. Maybe you missed some of the updates associated with the change? Laughably - this applies to the piece you appear to think this helps.

"One section of the policy, for example, specifies that while trust land should generally “be valued for its highest and best use,” considerations will be made for “limiting factors.” It instructs the DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands lacking a documented legal access — e.g., land that is in the checkerboard. "

With limited public involvement, Montana Land Board overhauls land-swap process

Landowner-hired consultants can broker deals with the state under State Auditor James Brown’s proposal.

montanafreepress.org

Awful quiet about the great things this does from the folks pushing it. The montana stockgrowers association and taylor luther group are great company to keep - long history of advocating for access.

 

[Rack Daniels]

View attachment 408708

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?
/QUOTE]

No
I like that timbered spot. Not that baron side

 

[Gerald Martin]

"One section of the policy, for example, specifies that while trust land should generally “be valued for its highest and best use,” considerations will be made for “limiting factors.” It instructs the DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands lacking a documented legal access — e.g., land that is in the checkerboard. "

Actually I did miss that update that instructs DNRC to discount state lands lacking documented legal access. I don’t support that at all. Thanks for pointing out that specific language.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I said it in post 58 too. It’s obvious what they’re doing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Actually I did miss that update that instructs DNRC to discount state lands lacking documented legal access. I don’t support that at all. Thanks for pointing out that specific language.

Yes. Its absolute garbage - and at the very least - i hope that any land swaps could get tabled until the lawsuit is done. Thanks for acknowleding that reality.

The commercial value of those properties is 0 currently for recreation access. I suppose the AUM annual payment is the only value there - at most a few thousand a year on a section. That in a long term annuity turned into a present value is pennies on the dollar of what that land is worth.

Id prefer it stay state land that I dont even access than give it away.

Edit: And i dont blame you for missing it - thats why everyone except folks like mcs (who apparently worked with the gov, according to bens testimony on it in a back room) and the stockgrowers association said this should wait at least 30 days for public comment. Kevin Farons testimony pointed out that the public didnt even gave access to a clean non-redlined copy and the only one they got they requested.

When things are sloppily thrown together, rushed, done in the back room, and then ram rodded through in 7 days you often cant get informed. Perhaps thats the point?

 

[rogerthat]

Yes. Its absolute garbage - and at the very least - i hope that any land swaps could get tabled until the lawsuit is done. Thanks for acknowleding that reality.

The commercial value of those properties is 0 currently for recreation access. I suppose the AUM annual payment is the only value there - at most a few thousand a year on a section. That in a long term annuity turned into a present value is pennies on the dollar of what that land is worth.

Id prefer it stay state land that I dont even access than give it away.

Wonder if anyone has any knowledge/past experience with what the discount is for inaccessible land. I remember a really long time ago some inaccessible state sections being offered to the lessee at about 25% of fmv of similar accessible private lands. But I also have been told I have early onset dementia so who knows if my memory is even close to accurate