Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Forkyfinder]

Heres the policy update proposal:
Heres the policy:
Orignal policy:

During the meeting testimony - MCS's representative stated that he was happy the govenor worked with them on the policy. For the gullible in the room - of course no one is going to parade around this part of it during testimony. Austin Knudsen knows plenty about saying dumb shit and it being replayed.

If you conclude that they wanted policy updates last fall that were specifically included in the policy (budget request 1 in the letter), supported passing the policy immediately (said in testimony), worked on it in advance with GG (said in testimony), but didnt have knowledge of the policies contents.... thats quite the conclusion.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The problem with these land exchanges and disposals, it's just like shooting a rifle, once you pull the trigger, it's over you aren't calling it back.

*This is not to say that land exchanges are all bad. However, anything that devalues State or Federal lands simply because of lack of public access is going to be a tough sell for me.

Exactly.

Who could responsibly support updating a broad policy like that with a week of public review?

Probably those who would benefit.

 

[cgasner1]

I saw a clip yesterday with Cal talking about this. So what happens when the judge says this isn’t legal in Montana? It’s legal in Wyoming big deal ask someone in Wyoming about what boat anchor works best for their drift boat.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I saw a clip yesterday with Cal talking about this. So what happens when the judge says this isn’t legal in Montana? It’s legal in Wyoming big deal ask someone in Wyoming about what boat anchor works best for their drift boat.

What does your "what if" have to do with whats being discussed? Reminds me of earlier commentary regarding boners and a friend of yours name being on your mind, is that taking too much head space? No ones looking for the judge to sat its not legal, they are looking for him to say it isnt law.

But since you asked - even if that did happen, should the public trade for "currently" inaccessible land at a "commercially reasonable reduced" price in perpetuity? @BuzzH made a lot of great points about why the land is still worth keeping, even if it isnt accessible, I wont pollute the thread by restating it. I would add though - the agenda from Monday has plenty of leases that im sure comfortably exceed the property tax that would be on it if it were privately owned, so im not sure i even understand the finance angle.

 

[antlerradar]

Something I think about is, in a very real way, swaps are much safer than land banking. Monies derived from the sale of Trust Lands must go into the land banking fund with the aim of purchasing other lands that are commensurate based on numerous criteria (access, trust revenue generation, etc.), but something folks don't think about is that if the money from the sale of a parcel or parcels of State Trust Land is not used within 10 years, that money is gone from the land banking program and goes back to the general fund of the Trust.

Think now of an administration's worth of an unfavorable land board. That's 8 years, and with the required administrative time between sale and purchase, it's wholly plausible that one administration and some anti-government-purchasing-earth land board members could leave a let a lot of possibility rotting in the fridge.

I agree, Land swaps are the best way to go, but are not without pit falls.
Landowners are going to going to try to get the best deal possible, Sportsman just need to be sure the deal is good for them also. If it not ownership can stay the same. No deal is going to please everyone.
Another problem with the land banking is land bought might be hours away from the parcel of public sold. A few years back a large SE MT ranch approached the BLM about a large land swap. The landowners proposal was to trad the BLM in surrounded by their property for land at least a hundred miles away. It was a bad deal. I was on the RAC at the time and the BLM supervisor asked me to look at his counter offer. It was a solid swap that would have resuted in access to some the best public land in SE MT. Landowner rejected that and the idea died. I am glad it did.
Some swap proposals are best to let die. The risk for landowners is that affordable access for sportsmen is going to become more of a possablity in the coming years and they will lose all their levrage. The risk for sportsman is that in the future the land will be sold out right and they get nothing in return. As a landowner I would be looking to swap, If you are a sportsman that truly belives that wide spread sale is just around the corner, a swap is in your best intrest also.

 

[cgasner1]

What does your "what if" have to do with whats being discussed? Reminds me of earlier commentary regarding boners and a friend of yours name being on your mind, is that taking too much head space? No ones looking for the judge to sat its not legal, they are looking for him to say it isnt law.

But since you asked - even if that did happen, should the public trade for "currently" inaccessible land at a "commercially reasonable reduced" price in perpetuity? @BuzzH made a lot of great points about why the land is still worth keeping, even if it isnt accessible, I wont pollute the thread by restating it. I would add though - the agenda from Monday has plenty of leases that im sure comfortably exceed the property tax that would be on it if it were privately owned, so im not sure i even understand the finance angle.

I’d rather operate in a gray area that a judge coming out and say it’s not legal. Just because Wyoming got the ruling doesn’t mean we will.
The laws are different state from state. Any chance you just booked hotel rooms in Wyoming for an elk hunt due to the state ground you plan on hunting doesn’t allow camping? In Montana I’d just camp

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree, Land swaps are the best way to go, but are not without pit falls.
Landowners are going to going to try to get the best deal possible, Sportsman just need to be sure the deal is good for them also. If it not ownership can stay the same. No deal is going to please everyone.
Another problem with the land banking is land bought might be hours away from the parcel of public sold. A few years back a large SE MT ranch approached the BLM about a large land swap. The landowners proposal was to trad the BLM in surrounded by their property for land at least a hundred miles away. It was a bad deal. I was on the RAC at the time and the BLM supervisor asked me to look at his counter offer. It was a solid swap that would have resuted in access to some the best public land in SE MT. Landowner rejected that and the idea died. I am glad it did.
Some swap proposals are best to let die. The risk for landowners is that affordable access for sportsmen is going to become more of a possablity in the coming years and they will lose all their levrage. The risk for sportsman is that in the future the land will be sold out right and they get nothing in return. As a landowner I would be looking to swap, If you are a sportsman that truly belives that wide spread sale is just around the corner, a swap is in your best intrest also.

Land swaps may be beneficial to both parties, but need transparency and vetting to sort out the potential pitfalls.

The best example of a good one resulted from Ted Turner wanting to swap the isolated state sections within the Flying D Ranch. He purchased property near Ulm and swapped to the state so he could take ownership of the parcels isolated within his ranch. The state received land that now is the First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park. It was a good deal for Turner and for Montana and the public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’d rather operate in a gray area that a judge coming out and say it’s not legal. Just because Wyoming got the ruling doesn’t mean we will.
The laws are different state from state. Any chance you just booked hotel rooms in Wyoming for an elk hunt due to the state ground you plan on hunting doesn’t allow camping? In Montana I’d just camp

If the judge says its not law - then even FWP, AG, and Gov all have to say they cant enforce it and it isnt law, backtracking to the legal gray area it was. As of January - its "prosecuted" by them, so im not sure it is the same legal gray area it was previously. I still dont think they'd touch someone doing it "the right way."

I get that the case may or may not work out. However, I am glad we might get an answer without depending on the proper specifics and fact patterns of someone getting charged for it, aren't you?

For obvious reasons, its an awful time (for the public) to accelerate/expedite the process land swaps. Why would you want to bargain/deal with someone before the leverage could dramatically change in your favor?

 

[cgasner1]

If the judge says its not law - then even FWP, AG, and Gov all have to say they cant enforce it and it isnt law, backtracking to the legal gray area it was. As of January - its "prosecuted" by them, so im not sure it is the same legal gray area it was previously. I still dont think they'd touch someone doing it "the right way."

I get that the case may or may not work out. However, I am glad we might get an answer without depending on the proper specifics and fact patterns of someone getting charged for it, aren't you?

For obvious reasons, its an awful time (for the public) to accelerate/expedite the process land swaps. Why would you want to bargain/deal with someone before the leverage could dramatically change in your favor?

I wish @Elky Welky the best of luck and I hope we win this. Im just not holding my breath until it’s over. Sooner or later it was heading to court anyways. This is probably a way better solution than someone crossing in a bad spot and blowing it all up

 

[Straight Arrow]

Be more patient, armchair lawyer grasshoppers ... avoid the wasteful, tossed-in-the-wind speculation just to see your handle posted ... again & again & again ... on HuntTalk.