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
- 9,602
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)…
SAJ-99
Well-known member
How much should they be paid for the violation of the airspace?If only there was some mechanism that would allow more hunters to access these private lands (while actually incentivizing landowners as well)…
My idea was more stick than carrot. The landowner that doesn’t allow access should pay the PILT for every acre.
For corner crossing? $0. I don’t really like the idea of compensation for that at all.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sorry, i misread.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5,519
My thought on it also is that it may be good for a year or so then the animals will be shot to hell and just stay off those pieces also. I agree we should have the access but I really think a lot of guys are living a fantasy about the tags that they will punch from this and will be disappointed when those pieces that they have been eyeing have 15 other people on them.
The point most people (besides @Elky Welky) are missing is that a lot of the corner locked or checkerboard land is lower elevation, and tends to have more habitat diversity, and offer better big game habitat, especially winter habitat when the snow starts to pile up.
There are more elk in Montana today than in the past. But they aren’t on public land, so hunters can’t get to them as easily as in the past. Access may seem a short term solution, but I can guarantee you it is 20x easier to gain access today than it will be in even 10 years.
We can fix the habitat on accessible lands later. But we have to get as much access as we can now, while we can.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I’m not sure I agree or disagree because of the variability in Montana’s terrain, but we have to acknowledge that most of public gets grazed all spring and summer. Montana has more cattle than people and elk combined. By October, the difference between a grazed BLM section and an ungrazed private section can look like the two different planets.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Let me know if I am understanding your question here, but I think the answer is no.
Our position is that corner crossing is not a crime, is neither legal nor illegal, and is wholly unenforceable. We also agree that making contact with private land is trespass. None of the programs we are talking about, including HB763, compensate a landowner for someone "corner crossing." Block mgmt, PALA, and UPL are all tools to allow someone to cross through private property--by actually touching the property--so those are separate and distinct.
elkduds
Well-known member
Effing property rights. 50% of corner-blocked property belongs to me, the public. The other half belongs to Rico Rancher. He can use mine at will as well as his. He shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from using mine especially since there is no legal trespass of his involved. Do I get to prevent him from crossing my corner to access his corner-touching lot? Unjust, unfair, unequal, unlawful.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
this made me laugh as I mind went into the rabbit hole. I guess it is not illegal, which always seemed like a double negative to me. Too much brain power needed for a Friday.
in colorado there is statutory framework (legal definition) for three primary different types of groundwater from a water rights perspective: tributary groundwater, nontributary groundwater, and, get this, not-nontributary groundwater.
