Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Forkyfinder]

As a tangent to this topic,

And an utterly useless one.

 

[Gerald Martin]

And an utterly useless one.

But then again, someone once told me I couldn’t smell if my nose was in it so I have that going for me…

 

[Forkyfinder]

I mean - does the land sudden and strange land board policy updates smell like shit? Lamb shit? Or bullshit?

Conservation and access icons Austin Knudsen and James Brown really seemed to like it and were excited to pass it, immediately. I have followed the land board stuff a while and AK has an obvious distaste for the idea of anymore state owned public land in MT. Jersey Greg literally cooked it (with a few select chronies, sounds like) up prior to the meeting - and then didnt want to suffer the political fallout later if he voted "yes" to this trash - so he abstained.

Im sure its all a great idea though - nothing like the most outward anti public land montana politican (knudsen) being excited about a crooked major policy update done in a hurry with limited public comment. Heres an example of the kind of other things said by him:

Let the whining about mule deer recommence.

 

[Rack Daniels]

BOOOOO! 🫟

 

[Carnage2011]

The minute Paul Ellis weighs in on anything, I’m automatically opposed to his ideas. That guy is a ****in tool that is only worried about “Paul Ellis.”

 

[Gerald Martin]

The minute Paul Ellis weighs in on anything, I’m automatically opposed to his ideas. That guy is a ****in tool that is only worried about “Paul Ellis.”

I’ve seen that sentiment in the eyes of folks who are making policy decisions reflected towards individuals on opposite sides of a contentious issue.

If I think I’ve learned anything from my limited engagement on policy debate and decision making at FWP meetings and legislative hearings it’s to never disregard the ability of a person perceived to be unreasonable to undermine the position they’re advocating for. Especially when the decision makers are coming in to the meeting with bias and preconceived preferences not aligned with the person who is hoping to change their minds in favor of a different direction.

 

[Elky Welky]

Op-ed from MT-BHA and PLWA in the Billings Gazette and other publications today, full text below:

Backed into a corner: Why we are suing FWP | Opinion

Sometimes, despite every good-faith effort to find common ground, the only path to resolution runs through a courthouse. Montanans have reached that point on corner crossing — and Montana Backcountry

billingsgazette.com

Backed into a Corner: Why We are Suing FWP

Sometimes, despite every good-faith effort to find common ground, the only path to resolution runs through a courthouse. Montanans have reached that point on corner crossing — and Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, joined by Public Land and Waters Access, has filed suit against Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) to protect what we have always fought for: the public's right and opportunity to hunt and fish on public land.

So what is corner crossing? When public and private land are arranged in a checkerboard pattern, some public parcels touch only at a single corner point with nothing else connecting them to the rest of the public land system. Corner crossing is the act of stepping directly from one public parcel to the other at that shared corner, never setting foot on private land. More than 870,000 acres of Montana's publicly owned land can only be reached this way. Without corner crossing, that land would be locked away from all of us — effectively creating exclusive access for the benefit of the adjacent landowners, not the public trust.

FWP has known about this for decades. In the early 2000s, the agency decided it couldn't actually claim corner crossing was lawful — but because the physical act was de minimis (momentary and fleeting), it adopted a policy of non-enforcement unless a clear trespass accompanied it. This policy was reasonable and workable. What followed was not.

Everything changed when four men used a ladder in Wyoming to cross from public land to public land, and were subsequently prosecuted by the state and sued by the adjoining landowner for doing so. They were first acquitted in the criminal court, and the lawsuit went all the way to the 10th Circuit, wherein that Federal Appeals Court determined in 2023 that Corner Crossing was legal. Sadly, Montana is not in the 10th Circuit; we are in the 9th and therefore that ruling is persuasive, but not legally binding. The FWP director at the time, Dustin Temple, then declared without authority that corner crossing was “unlawful” in Montana.

Simultaneously, Montana BHA contacted FWP after new hunter FAQs on the agency's website flatly declared corner crossing “illegal” — a claim with no legal basis. FWP communications director Greg Lemon acknowledged the language was inaccurate and said it would be corrected. Days later, we were told FWP would not change its position. No explanation was offered. No valid case law was provided.

That same year, a hunter in Broadwater County was criminally charged for corner crossing — caught on trail cameras stepping from one public parcel to another at a textbook corner. The Montana Attorney General's office took over the prosecution. In 2024, they moved to dismiss. They said they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and Montanans were still left without answers.

In 2025, Montana BHA worked with Representative Josh Seckinger on HB 763, a bill to compensate willing landowners for allowing through-access to public land at corners. We extended an olive branch to our friends in agriculture and the Farm Bureau to protect leaseholder interests as part of the bill. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support. Yet when asked about what has been done to promote the program, we haven’t received satisfactory answers from the department. To our knowledge and to date, no landowner has been enrolled.

Late last year, BHA and partners sat down directly with FWP attorneys and law enforcement to seek clarity on their position. When asked about the 10th Circuit's ruling, FWP's attorneys admitted they hadn't read it. When we asked how many Montanans had been prosecuted for corner crossing in 2025, they couldn't name one.

Weeks later, FWP Director Christy Clark issued an internal memo declaring corner crossing unlawful, and in a major departure from prior enforcement guidance, directed game wardens to issue citations — with no public notice, no comment period, and no legal authority cited. Further follow ups and requests for clarity and accuracy were rebuffed or ignored. For us, this was the final straw.

BHA was founded on a simple belief: that hunting and fishing on our wild public lands are worth fighting for. And PLWA has a 40 year history of fighting for public access to public lands and waters in Montana. Every public acre locked away from public access is an acre lost to the next generation of Montana hunters and anglers. Filing suit against our home state was not our first choice, in fact it was the last option when faced with loss of access to 871,000 acres. Every season is some kid's first and an old dog's last, it's impossible to create stewards of the land without access to it. So we're asking the court to provide what FWP would not: clarity, accountability, and a path back to the public land that belongs to everyone. Now—and for all who come after us.

Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a nonprofit organization dedicated to our wild public lands, waters, and wildlife. Join us at https://www.backcountryhunters.org/Get-Involved/Chapters/Montana/Join.

PLWA is a membership-based Montana non-profit dedicated to maintaining and defending access to Montana's public lands and waters. Learn more or join today at plwa.org.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Op-ed from MT-BHA and PLWA in the Billings Gazette and other publications today, full text below:

Backed into a corner: Why we are suing FWP | Opinion

Sometimes, despite every good-faith effort to find common ground, the only path to resolution runs through a courthouse. Montanans have reached that point on corner crossing — and Montana Backcountry

billingsgazette.com

Backed into a Corner: Why We are Suing FWP

Sometimes, despite every good-faith effort to find common ground, the only path to resolution runs through a courthouse. Montanans have reached that point on corner crossing — and Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, joined by Public Land and Waters Access, has filed suit against Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) to protect what we have always fought for: the public's right and opportunity to hunt and fish on public land.

So what is corner crossing? When public and private land are arranged in a checkerboard pattern, some public parcels touch only at a single corner point with nothing else connecting them to the rest of the public land system. Corner crossing is the act of stepping directly from one public parcel to the other at that shared corner, never setting foot on private land. More than 870,000 acres of Montana's publicly owned land can only be reached this way. Without corner crossing, that land would be locked away from all of us — effectively creating exclusive access for the benefit of the adjacent landowners, not the public trust.

FWP has known about this for decades. In the early 2000s, the agency decided it couldn't actually claim corner crossing was lawful — but because the physical act was de minimis (momentary and fleeting), it adopted a policy of non-enforcement unless a clear trespass accompanied it. This policy was reasonable and workable. What followed was not.

Everything changed when four men used a ladder in Wyoming to cross from public land to public land, and were subsequently prosecuted by the state and sued by the adjoining landowner for doing so. They were first acquitted in the criminal court, and the lawsuit went all the way to the 10th Circuit, wherein that Federal Appeals Court determined in 2023 that Corner Crossing was legal. Sadly, Montana is not in the 10th Circuit; we are in the 9th and therefore that ruling is persuasive, but not legally binding. The FWP director at the time, Dustin Temple, then declared without authority that corner crossing was “unlawful” in Montana.

Simultaneously, Montana BHA contacted FWP after new hunter FAQs on the agency's website flatly declared corner crossing “illegal” — a claim with no legal basis. FWP communications director Greg Lemon acknowledged the language was inaccurate and said it would be corrected. Days later, we were told FWP would not change its position. No explanation was offered. No valid case law was provided.

That same year, a hunter in Broadwater County was criminally charged for corner crossing — caught on trail cameras stepping from one public parcel to another at a textbook corner. The Montana Attorney General's office took over the prosecution. In 2024, they moved to dismiss. They said they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and Montanans were still left without answers.

In 2025, Montana BHA worked with Representative Josh Seckinger on HB 763, a bill to compensate willing landowners for allowing through-access to public land at corners. We extended an olive branch to our friends in agriculture and the Farm Bureau to protect leaseholder interests as part of the bill. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support. Yet when asked about what has been done to promote the program, we haven’t received satisfactory answers from the department. To our knowledge and to date, no landowner has been enrolled.

Late last year, BHA and partners sat down directly with FWP attorneys and law enforcement to seek clarity on their position. When asked about the 10th Circuit's ruling, FWP's attorneys admitted they hadn't read it. When we asked how many Montanans had been prosecuted for corner crossing in 2025, they couldn't name one.

Weeks later, FWP Director Christy Clark issued an internal memo declaring corner crossing unlawful, and in a major departure from prior enforcement guidance, directed game wardens to issue citations — with no public notice, no comment period, and no legal authority cited. Further follow ups and requests for clarity and accuracy were rebuffed or ignored. For us, this was the final straw.

BHA was founded on a simple belief: that hunting and fishing on our wild public lands are worth fighting for. And PLWA has a 40 year history of fighting for public access to public lands and waters in Montana. Every public acre locked away from public access is an acre lost to the next generation of Montana hunters and anglers. Filing suit against our home state was not our first choice, in fact it was the last option when faced with loss of access to 871,000 acres. Every season is some kid's first and an old dog's last, it's impossible to create stewards of the land without access to it. So we're asking the court to provide what FWP would not: clarity, accountability, and a path back to the public land that belongs to everyone. Now—and for all who come after us.

Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a nonprofit organization dedicated to our wild public lands, waters, and wildlife. Join us at https://www.backcountryhunters.org/Get-Involved/Chapters/Montana/Join.

PLWA is a membership-based Montana non-profit dedicated to maintaining and defending access to Montana's public lands and waters. Learn more or join today at plwa.org.

"In 2025, Montana BHA worked with Representative Josh Seckinger on HB 763, a bill to compensate willing landowners for allowing through-access to public land at corners. We extended an olive branch to our friends in agriculture and the Farm Bureau to protect leaseholder interests as part of the bill. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support. Yet when asked about what has been done to promote the program, we haven’t received satisfactory answers from the department. To our knowledge and to date, no landowner has been enrolled."

I think this is the most significant part of the article.

 

[sclancy27]

"In 2025, Montana BHA worked with Representative Josh Seckinger on HB 763, a bill to compensate willing landowners for allowing through-access to public land at corners. We extended an olive branch to our friends in agriculture and the Farm Bureau to protect leaseholder interests as part of the bill. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support. Yet when asked about what has been done to promote the program, we haven’t received satisfactory answers from the department. To our knowledge and to date, no landowner has been enrolled."

I think this is the most significant part of the article.

HB 763 doesn't say anything specific about access at or via corners, only "For a proposed agreement that only provides access to public lands for hunting purposes...."

I'm sort of confused by the statement of enrollment. Reading the bill, it opens up funds from BMA program where there would be no access to hunt private lands, only an access corridor to hunt adjacent public lands? So, there wasn't any new BMA enrollment based explicitly on this part I assume. I know basically every BMA allows access on adjacent public lands currently and says so in the rules for each one.

Tangentially, I can't remember the name of the program, but I've hunted areas in Eastern MT that do basically the same thing but aren't BMA, so these programs would theoretically compete with one another now?

 

[Nameless Range]

HB 763 doesn't say anything specific about access at or via corners, only "For a proposed agreement that only provides access to public lands for hunting purposes...."

I'm sort of confused by the statement of enrollment. Reading the bill, it opens up funds from BMA program where there would be no access to hunt private lands, only an access corridor to hunt adjacent public lands? So, there wasn't any new BMA enrollment based explicitly on this part I assume. I know basically every BMA allows access on adjacent public lands currently and says so in the rules for each one.

Tangentially, I can't remember the name of the program, but I've hunted areas in Eastern MT that do basically the same thing but aren't BMA, so these programs would theoretically compete with one another now?

Yeah, I kind of wondered how that interacts with PALA, which has been around since 2019, I believe

Public Access Land Agreements | Montana FWP

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks’ Public Access Land Agreements program seeks to open or improve free public access to isolated parcels of state or federal land for hunting or fishing.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Elky Welky]

HB 763 doesn't say anything specific about access at or via corners, only "For a proposed agreement that only provides access to public lands for hunting purposes...."

I'm sort of confused by the statement of enrollment. Reading the bill, it opens up funds from BMA program where there would be no access to hunt private lands, only an access corridor to hunt adjacent public lands? So, there wasn't any new BMA enrollment based explicitly on this part I assume. I know basically every BMA allows access on adjacent public lands currently and says so in the rules for each one.

Tangentially, I can't remember the name of the program, but I've hunted areas in Eastern MT that do basically the same thing but aren't BMA, so these programs would theoretically compete with one another now?

PALA is all-year-long and often multiple years, pays less, and doesn't give landowners as much negotiating control. It also has some poison pills in it regarding leaseholders and lets them put the kabosh on their neighbors allowing public access. And if anyone was watching the hearings earlier this week, there are a fair share of leaseholders that want to maintain their exclusive access to our land.

763 leveraged an already existing program and was meant to allow landowners who don't mind people accessing public land during hunting season to negotiate for a higher return without requiring allowing hunting on their property, just through access and a corridor they get to decide the size of. It also allows leaseholders to object but does not give them the power to automatically veto. It also removed the onerous sign-in box process (FWP can barely manage those) by creating the flat fee.

And yes, not mentioning corners in the bill was intentional, because it would have been DOA and it makes more sense to allow the landowner to decide how large to make the corridor. We also wanted the bill to apply to truly landlocked public lands, not just perfect corners. Particularly since we maintain that someone can corner cross regardless. And if two different landowners share a perfect corner, Landowner A could simply allow someone to go around the corner and avoid the issue altogether without crossing over the corner and supposedly infringing on Landowner B's precious airspace.

 

[sclancy27]

PALA is all-year-long and often multiple years, pays less, and doesn't give landowners as much negotiating control. It also has some poison pills in it regarding leaseholders and lets them put the kabosh on their neighbors allowing public access. And if anyone was watching the hearings earlier this week, there are a fair share of leaseholders that want to maintain their exclusive access to our land.

For clarity, leaseholders are those holding an SRP (outfitters, etc) or cattle? I didn't realize PALA allowed leaseholders to veto access agreements of neighbors, that BS, particularly if it includes SRP's.

763 leveraged an already existing program and was meant to allow landowners who don't mind people accessing public land during hunting season to negotiate for a higher return without requiring allowing hunting on their property, just through access and a corridor they get to decide the size of. It also allows leaseholders to object but does not give them the power to automatically veto. It also removed the onerous sign-in box process (FWP can barely manage those) by creating the flat fee.

The way I read it the veto power is held by the commission?

And yes, not mentioning corners in the bill was intentional, because it would have been DOA and it makes more sense to allow the landowner to decide how large to make the corridor. We also wanted the bill to apply to truly landlocked public lands, not just perfect corners. Particularly since we maintain that someone can corner cross regardless. And if two different landowners share a perfect corner, Landowner A could simply allow someone to go around the corner and avoid the issue altogether without crossing over the corner and supposedly infringing on Landowner B's precious airspace.

The only reason I mentioned corners was I felt the article was disingenuous with that statement. I realize mentioning anything about corner-crossing as public access would have torpedoed the bill.

 

[Elky Welky]

For clarity, leaseholders are those holding an SRP (outfitters, etc) or cattle? I didn't realize PALA allowed leaseholders to veto access agreements of neighbors, that BS, particularly if it includes SRP's.

Someone can only do a PALA if they hold the lease or the land isn't leased by someone else. Not sure on lease type. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/tit...rt_0020/section_0950/0870-0010-0020-0950.html

The way I read it the veto power is held by the commission?

Correct.

The only reason I mentioned corners was I felt the article was disingenuous with that statement. I realize mentioning anything about corner-crossing as public access would have torpedoed the bill.

We were quick to mention it as soon as the bill got through, and Ryan Callaghan even posted that it was a potential corner crossing solution during the session. In the context of this op-ed, 763 does allow for through access at corners. The fact that it can be used for even more applications doesn't make the statement disingenuous.

One more very important distinction between 763 and PALA as well is that PALA requires that the public land be "inaccessible" and creates a definition for that. 763 doesn't require the public land to be "inaccessible." This was another way to sidestep CC as an issue altogether, because in our view that land is already accessible.

 

[sclancy27]

We were quick to mention it as soon as the bill got through, and Ryan Callaghan even posted that it was a potential corner crossing solution during the session. In the context of this op-ed, 763 does allow for through access at corners. The fact that it can be used for even more applications doesn't make the statement disingenuous.

To me it was disingenuous for this reason: The article could have said "HB 763 allows funds from the BMA program to be used to pay landowners for legal public access to difficult to access public land". Instead, it reads as is, insinuating that it was CC specific instead of all forms of public access specific, of which CC would be included (we basically all believe CC to be legal public access).

 

[bigsky2]

I don't mean to be a downer, but when I hear that landowners aren't participating in these types of access agreements, it doesn't surprise me. If landowners care about having healthy populations of game animals around their property, they probably aren't going to want to let the neighboring public land get flooded with hunters. On the other hand, if they are the sort of landowner that is willing to give access, you'd think they would just enroll in Block Management (which I would assume pays more money). I'm sure there are a few out there that are happy to allow access to public but just don't want the added traffic on their own land, but I'd think its a very small number. I understand every little bit of access helps to move the needle a little though.

 

[Treeshark]

To that point:

Does Montana really have an access issue? Or is it really a quality issue disguised as an access issue?

 

[Elky Welky]

To me it was disingenuous for this reason: The article could have said "HB 763 allows funds from the BMA program to be used to pay landowners for legal public access to difficult to access public land". Instead, it reads as is, insinuating that it was CC specific instead of all forms of public access specific, of which CC would be included (we basically all believe CC to be legal public access).

Just because you would have phrased it differently doesn't make it disingenuous, which implies some form of ill-intent or lack of sincerity. HB 763 was a sincere gift to address access issues, corners or otherwise. In the context of this op-ed, we're talking about good faith efforts to address corner crossing. 763 was and remains that attempt. Any paragraph taken out of context can be rephrased. An easier fix here would simply be to drop the last two words "at corners," which then says the same thing you just re-wrote. But then it divorces it from its context and would confuse people as to why it is relevant.

Agreed @bigsky2. I wasn't surprised FWP didn't push it and nobody has signed up yet. Disappointed, for sure. That's part of why we are in the situation we are in. We lead the horse to water. You can only do so much before you simply have to act.