Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Deez Nutz]

Sooo,…. Can we corner cross? …or no?

 

[Elky Welky]

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?

FWP is using our hunter dollars to pay for extremely expensive private attorneys—when FWP already has their own in-house counsel. And yes, those attorneys have attempted to remove it to federal court. It’s abundantly clear that on this issue FWP is no longer acting in the interest of the majority of Montanans.

But we have amended the complaint and refiled to clear up that issue, and expect it to remain in state court.

I’m not going to discuss all of our discussions with our attorneys for obvious reasons. But speaking outside of those conversations and from personal experience with litigation, I believe there will be lots of frivolous, piddling motions and maneuvers by FWP’s hired guns to try and drain the war chest and drag this thing on as long as possible.

 

[Wildabeest]

FWP is using our hunter dollars to pay for extremely expensive private attorneys—when FWP already has their own in-house counsel. And yes, those attorneys have attempted to remove it to federal court. It’s abundantly clear that on this issue FWP is no longer acting in the interest of the majority of Montanans.

But we have amended the complaint and refiled to clear up that issue, and expect it to remain in state court.

I’m not going to discuss all of our discussions with our attorneys for obvious reasons. But speaking outside of those conversations and from personal experience with litigation, I believe there will be lots of frivolous, piddling motions and maneuvers by FWP’s hired guns to try and drain the war chest and drag this thing on as long as possible.

We appreciate your efforts!

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Common sense would dictate to one that if a ranch has a corner “hoppable section” that holds elk, and “corner hopping” is now legal, ranch loses value. Like I’d care if they did lose inflated value?? WTF? I’m in business of buying ranches, not fantasizing about govt or groups buying land for me to access. I hope it cheapens land to ag prices, so I have a chance( now that is a fantasy).

Common sense would then also dictate there would be examples of these corner-properties losing value in the 10th circuit states after the ruling . . .

 

[INMT]

Sooo,…. Can we corner cross? …or no?

Yes

 

[Elkmagnet]

FWP is using our hunter dollars to pay for extremely expensive private attorneys—when FWP already has their own in-house counsel. And yes, those attorneys have attempted to remove it to federal court. It’s abundantly clear that on this issue FWP is no longer acting in the interest of the majority of Montanans.

But we have amended the complaint and refiled to clear up that issue, and expect it to remain in state court.

I’m not going to discuss all of our discussions with our attorneys for obvious reasons. But speaking outside of those conversations and from personal experience with litigation, I believe there will be lots of frivolous, piddling motions and maneuvers by FWP’s hired guns to try and drain the war chest and drag this thing on as long as possible.

Like a game of whack a mole but with turds instead of mole's. Good luck we will keep trying to support you guys who are fighting for us.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sooo,…. Can we corner cross? …or no?

i will put the first 100 dollars to your defense fund.

 

[Deez Nutz]

I’ve got a spot that I would like to corner cross but if I did, it would be very evident and I would be willing to bet that the land owners would be making a call to the authorities/trying to sabotage my hunt. Trying to gauge weather it would be worth it or not based on how the authorities would respond to the complaint.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Can we prove the funds are coming from our tax dollars?
Being used to fund litigation that is OPPOSING the will/best interest of those from whom the money came?
Class action??

I mean, if someone took money from “investors” for an insidious/fictional purpose…….

 

[Forkyfinder]

Can we prove the funds are coming from our tax dollars?
Being used to fund litigation that is OPPOSING the will/best interest of those from whom the money came?
Class action??

I mean, if someone took money from “investors” for an insidious/fictional purpose…….

Whoever made the decision to get expensive seperate/private legal counsel needs to be let go.

FWP mission statement:

"Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, through its employees and citizen commission and board, provides for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks, and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations."

This action and the steps taken to get here is strong departure from that mission statement.

 

[sclancy27]

Can we prove the funds are coming from our tax dollars?
Being used to fund litigation that is OPPOSING the will/best interest of those from whom the money came?
Class action??

I mean, if someone took money from “investors” for an insidious/fictional purpose…….

They'd be coming from license dollars.

The fact that FWP is even involved in this blows my mind. It's like that scene in Tommy Boy...

 

[DP_PublicLands]

Your underlying assumption is false. Corner crossing is not illegal, and land is not more valuable because of the fictional belief that it is. This was at the heart of Eshelman’s argument: that his land was somehow devalued, which is why he was asking for millions of dollars.

That argument was categorically rejected by the tenth circuit. In finding that it was legal, the court made it very clear that he lost no money or value when the Missourians crossed.

Obviously there are a lot of people that want to claim this is true because they think they have exclusive access to what the public owns. But again, that is a fiction. You can’t lose what was never yours to begin with.

Common sense would dictate to one that if a ranch has a corner “hoppable section” that holds elk, and “corner hopping” is now legal, ranch loses value. Like I’d care if they did lose inflated value?? WTF? I’m in business of buying ranches, not fantasizing about govt or groups buying land for me to access. I hope it cheapens land to ag prices, so I have a chance( now that is a fantasy).

I think much of the contention surrounding this issue comes from a misunderstanding of how government works. I thought we've moved past this. We aren’t talking about the legislature changing the law; we’re talking about a court interpreting and clarifying existing law. If a court determines that corner crossing does not constitute trespass, then it was never legally trespass in the first place. You can’t claim the loss of a legal right you never actually had.

 

[BuzzH]

Common sense would dictate to one that if a ranch has a corner “hoppable section” that holds elk, and “corner hopping” is now legal, ranch loses value. Like I’d care if they did lose inflated value?? WTF? I’m in business of buying ranches, not fantasizing about govt or groups buying land for me to access. I hope it cheapens land to ag prices, so I have a chance( now that is a fantasy).

Just point me to a single of piece of property in Wyoming or any other state in the 10th circuit where property values have declined because corner crossing is now legal.

I think you lack common sense.

Property value declines didn't happen for stream access, didn't happen when we sued the state for access to state lands either.

Property values are not going to decline a single penny in Montana over corner crossing...fact.

 

[brocksw]

Some things that in my opinion are relevant to this conversation and the claims made about corner crossing legality and it's impacts on land values.

First, I think it's prudent to point out that just because a realtor can create a sense of exclusivity to a potential land buyer, by including land locked public land in the purchase, does not mean that ranch on a per acre basis is actually more valuable. It's simply a realtor selling an idea or a percieved sense of entitlement that does not exist. The realtor, from everything I've seen, does not have the right or authority to sell exclusive access to public land or any land that is not deeded/owned by the seller. They may be able to sell/include grazing rights to that public land, but that's a far cry from ownership and exclusive access. So in a sense, at least in my opinion, they're selling a dishonest perspective to potential land buyers to boost their commissions.

Second, Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana are very similar in multiple facets. Politics, population densities, land use, hunting, etc. However, North Dakota has what we call the section line law (statute linked and shown below). This law states that every single section line, has a 33 foot public right of way on each side of that section line. So, there is a 66 foot public right of way on every single section line that is open to public travel (by foot, or by motor vehicle if there is a trail). Yet, grazing land values in Western ND and Eastern MT, at least by everything I've seen, are nearly identical (Which makes sense considering their similarities). You would think, if previous claims about loss of land value were true, that ND would have significantly lower land values. Certainly, no one could argue that a 66 foot right of way along an entire 1 mile section line, would impact land values more than just a point at a corner. Yet...

 

[Nameless Range]

What I don't understand, is why do I or does anyone even care about property values?

There are many things one could lawfully do, that may devalue someone's property, but that devaluation is a personal problem to the property owner.

For example, say I own a house adjacent to BLM. When I bought my property, that BLM was seldom-visited. Lately, that BLM has become popular for dispersed camping/parties/recreational shooting - all of which make my property less desirable. But the public has a right to use that property lawfully, and I as a landowner can't prohibit it just cuz it hurts my resell value.

If CC is legal - if it ain't trespass - why would advocates for CC even care what happens to property values? We don't with many other types of legal public use.

Just a genuine question regarding why it’s even in the discussion in terms of legality

 

[SAJ-99]

Second, Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana are very similar in multiple facets. Politics, population densities, land use, hunting, etc. However, North Dakota has what we call the section line law (statute linked and shown below). This law states that every single section line, has a 33 foot public right of way on each side of that section line. So, there is a 66 foot public right of way on every single section line that is open to public travel (by foot, or by motor vehicle if there is a trail). Yet, grazing land values in Western ND and Eastern MT, at least by everything I've seen, are nearly identical (Which makes sense considering their similarities). You would think, if previous claims about loss of land value were true, that ND would have significantly lower land values. Certainly, no one could argue that a 66 foot right of way along an entire 1 mile section line, would impact land values more than just a point at a corner. Yet...

Is there any compensation for that RoW?

 

[brocksw]

Is there any compensation for that RoW?

0

 

[SAJ-99]

0

Very un-Montana.

 

[Treeshark]

If CC is legal - if it ain't trespass - why would advocates for CC even care what happens to property values? We don't with many other types of legal public use.

Just a genuine question regarding why it’s even in the discussion in terms of legality

Agree. I think it is a red herring that corner-crossing opponents are hoping dominated the discussion.

Whether or not property values are impacted by corner crossing is completely irrelevant to the legality of said activity.

 

[BuzzH]

Agree. I think it is a red herring that corner-crossing opponents are hoping dominated the discussion.

Whether or not property values are impacted by corner crossing is completely irrelevant to the legality of said activity.

I can see the argument made by Iron Bar when they decided on civil suit. They had to try to show some sort of damage, even though it made zero sense.

But Albus trying to blow smoke about property values is ridiculous...and dumb.