Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,922
I look forward to a court ruling. Her intrepretation (red, above) seems like a half truth of what she is referring to from the opinion of the court below.
Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
I look forward to a court ruling. Her intrepretation (red, above) seems like a half truth of what she is referring to from the opinion of the court below.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I wonder if she even wants to defend it.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,922
She had to have known that pushing would result in this.
Surely she finds something written there quite compelling or the obvious move would have been to remain quiet on the topic.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,629
I think they thought they were just going to gaslight us. If you say it enough times, people believe you. It’s not like this hasn’t been a proven winning formula.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
That very last line is interesting when framed in the context of the issue. It reads like the court simply didn't or couldn't fathom someone only fencing their individual sections as a middle finger to the public. But the court clearly never met an entitled NR pharma bro. Let alone anyone from Texas.
Which public gets grazed all spring and summer? You said most public. Statewide? mtmuley
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
“Your corner” you are referring to is “his corner” too. So no. That’s the BS exclusivity that they are sold on when they buy the ranch, and that’s the exclusivity they exclaim they reserve when they own that much land.
HappyCamper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2023
- Messages
- 299
I checked in on this case today and see it got moved to federal court a few weeks ago. To our legal people, does this add any significance?
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,847
One thing corner crossing will do for certain is de-value properties a great deal. Which is good for those wanting to expand, bad for those who’ve paid inflated prices.
I still want a SCOTUS ruling on the legality.
I still want a SCOTUS ruling on the legality.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
They did by not taking up the case from the 10th. Until there is a conflicting case, there is nothing to rule on. Maybe next session someone in MT will propose a bill that conflicts with the 10th ruling. You will know before any of us.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's pure horseshit and I can't believe you would type that...I haven't seen the price drop on a single piece of property in Wyoming after we slam dunked corner crossing.
I heard the same old lies in Montana when stream access passed..."our property values".
Yeah, point me to a single piece of stream/river front property in Montana that's gone down in value because I can wade the river and fish.
If you want to have any credibility, quit lying all the time.
On the other hand, I wish your fantasy/pretend was true...cheaper for AP to acquire more property.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
If corner crossing was never illegal, then any additional value those properties had was improperly high and based on an incorrect and risky assumption. Caveat emptor! Hard to feel sorry for them. In addition, they got tangible improper value for the years they had exclusive access or financial gains from leasing to outfitters while intimidating the public.
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,132
Can you provide a single example in Wyoming where a parcel was purchased before the 9th circuit ruling at X price and then sold for less than X price after the ruling?
I agree with @BuzzH that this is one heck of a presumption and was just typing out what @Wildabeest wrote about the catch 22 on this which is also ironic seeing Montana FWP had warden guidance to not write tickets which pointed to corner crossing being closer to legal than illegal for the past couple decades so someone paying more would have had to assume wardens/FWP were wrong when they made the purchase.
That being said, there is still a value in having *EASIER* access to those public lands. In the few corners I've crossed the corners have generally been in a terrible place (elevation loss followed by gain, in a draw etc.) that I would 10/10 times have not traversed and only did so to stay on public land. Those private parcels have all had two-tracks that lead right into the parcel I had to corner cross to access.
I'm hearing similar scare-tactic arguments that Block Management enrollment is going to plummet if corner crossing gets legalized in MT. I just don't see that happening. Will some landowners pull out? Probably, they do every year for a variety of reasons but there will also be others enrolling - the monetary incentive is still there.
Last edited:
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,922
Where i am and you are in the world - what drove the price up more than anything is elk. I think hunters have done enough funding of management, game damage (fraud in cases), and law enforcement for those elk.
Maybe after i, and everyone else who funded that, get our check ill see about cutting a sliver of a percent off for the 3' easement for the alleged "taking"
Curious - by the way - since you are concerned about land prices. Did you mention that when bens billionares drove the land value much higher with HB635?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,922
Oh - that?
The bma whine? I think i know exactly where and what youre talking about.
Thanks to a likely self authored, certainly self serving, land board policy update pushed by a "non profit" ran by the same owner of this land - there wont have any reason to be in BMA anyway. Another excuse to tell hunters in MT to stop being "absolute" about access in order to play nice and " compromise".
Surely - a peddler of this bs will come and deny it soon.
