I think it may actually be very relevant.
Why do you think the hunting is better where there has not been access (free access, anyway)?
Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
I think it may actually be very relevant.
Why do you think the hunting is better where there has not been access (free access, anyway)?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
There are always more fish on the other side of the river.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,600
We have an access issue and a quality management issue. Both exist and solving one doesn’t solve the other.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I don't think this is a red herring, these are relevant questions. I also wouldn't necessarily say hunting is "better." We're the 4th largest state in the country. There's some massive wilderness areas and national forests on the western side of the state with "better hunting." Better is ultimately subjective.
I would say there are many places with corner-locked land and large ranches that hoard the wildlife adjacent to large areas of public land. The animals all hang out down on the ranch and know where it is safe and where it is not. Corner-locked lands are often the key to disbursing animals back onto larger chunks of public.
Good points @Elky Welky, I appreciate the response.
Assuming that:
-On balance, there are currently more animals on private and limited-access public than accessible public
-There are tens of millions (fact check me) of free-accessible acres already
I tend to view this as more of a quality issue. I’m not sure that increasing free access is going to be the bonanza some people are envisioning, and perhaps could actually be a net-negative.
As a DIY public land hunter, I can see both sides of this one.
Assuming that:
-On balance, there are currently more animals on private and limited-access public than accessible public
-There are tens of millions (fact check me) of free-accessible acres already
I tend to view this as more of a quality issue. I’m not sure that increasing free access is going to be the bonanza some people are envisioning, and perhaps could actually be a net-negative.
As a DIY public land hunter, I can see both sides of this one.
Last edited:
Elky Welky
Well-known member
I'd echo @Gerald Martin on that. Multiple issues require multiple solutions working together. Access, quality, quantity, habitat, etc. all need to be addressed hand-and-hand, and "fixing" one alone won't fix the other.
In the simplest of terms though, distribution is a big piece of this puzzle. Too many hunters on public, too many animals on private. Spreading out both the hunters and the animals is crucial to improving the quality for all. Some of that free land is of the highest quality already, at least habitat/feed/cover/water wise. But those pesky two-legged predators make it uninhabitable.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It probably won't. A big reason those animals are on private is because the private is higher quality ground, and that is on purpose. Not every blocked corner leads to Elk Mountain. There are myriad factors, and CC is just one piece. But you have to start somewhere and then there is the principle of the thing.
If only there was some mechanism that would allow more hunters to access these private lands (while actually incentivizing landowners as well)…
Back on topic, question for you @Elky Welky- do you/did you have any concerns that the corner-crossing comp programs may have been problematic towards the actual corner crossing suit filed by the BHA?
If only. mtmuleyIf only there was some mechanism that would allow more hunters to access these private lands (while actually incentivizing landowners as well)…
