Montana Corner Crossing Updated?

[Eric Albus]

Are you stating this as it’s your opinion that corner crossing is clearly illegal or making a statement of legal fact that corner crossing is illegal? Care to share the cases that prove corner crossing is in fact illegal?

The most recent case I am aware of personally seems to support that the exact opposite of your claim is true.

U.S. vs Causby

 

[antlerradar]

You must have a lot of serious hunters around your parts. I've hunted some of the most pressured units for elk in the state and once I'm 2 or 3 miles from the trail head I rarely see anyone. The spot you mentioned where people float into doesn't surprise me, sure its a time investment but it doesn't require much physical effort.

Sadly in eastern Montana your best chance at a quality animal is just being at the right place at the right time when the buck or bull of your dreams jumps the fence. All of the places I mention are sounded by lightly hunted private land. Even though those places are hunted hard there is always a chance that you will be the lucky guy and this is what keeps people coming back. Public land accessed by corner hopping will be the same.
Now take for example the places on the Custer that are 2+ miles from the road. I think that there are fewer hunters in those place now than there was in the early 90's, The difference now is that those place have far fewer deer during the season. Hunters down, but hunters per deer up. I haven't spent much time in the west, but judging by the Gallatin check station numbers I would guess the same is true with elk in parts of western MT. @Hopzone Freak would know.

 

[Eric Albus]

Are you stating this as it’s your opinion that corner crossing is clearly illegal or making a statement of legal fact that corner crossing is illegal? Care to share the cases that prove corner crossing is in fact illegal?

The most recent case I am aware of personally seems to support that the exact opposite of your claim is true.

U.S. vs Causby

 

[rogerthat]

U.S. vs Causby

There are some unique differences in this court case and corner crossing. The private property taking also included some language about the airplanes were flying low enough to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property. I think it’s a stretch to think crossing a corner is the same activity.

 

[sclancy27]

Nearly all the landowners I know would gladly purchase their landlocked sections of BLM/State. They don’t like it any better than you. Convince these gov’t agencies to sell these lands off and purchase adjacent lands to already accessible areas.

To your question, yes, given access the public would destroy it. I don’t think anyone can argue this, at least not honestly or credibly.

It is a license allotment issue. There are to many license for to finite of a resource.

They would purchase them at a subsidized cost, not the market price, at least if they were traditional landowners (farmer/rancher). Big money NR landowners would have no issue snapping them up at market price. I think we should avoid this scenario.

I agree we should be looking at getting rid of those checkerboard areas thru land swaps.

 

[Big Shooter]

There are some unique differences in this court case and corner crossing. The private property taking also included some language about the airplanes were flying low enough to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property. I think it’s a stretch to think crossing a corner is the same activity.

But it does address air space and who owns it. I’m guessing that’s what Eric is talking about as I read it as well.

 

[rogerthat]

But it does address air space and who owns it. I’m guessing that’s what Eric is talking about as I read it as well.

Correct but what is the taking? Visually seeing the other human at the very instant they cross at that corner and occupy your air space? That’s going to be one of the significant differences tested in my opinion.

 

[Schaaf]

No amount of rationalization for how corner crossing “violates a person’s property rights” will make sense to 95% of the general public because the general public deals with it on a daily occurrence. This morning before work I counted 3 people that “violated” my airspace on their way to school and work by walking and hanging their hand over my property line. It doesn’t bother me in the least bit because I’m not trying to financially benefit from whatever’s on the other side of my property line.

In this case, a large portion of the ranching community has found themselves in an echo chamber trying to rationalize something that only they see a problem with.

 

[YoungGun]

FWP has managed socially instead of biologically. It has been all about opportunity and what makes the most revenue (license sales). If elk/deer were managed biologically we’d have been in a limited draw years ago.

And what has Hank done in his term to mitigate this? I would consider his numerous elk proposals involving landowners to be a "social" issue, not a "biological" one.

 

[Point Creep]

 

[Deleted member 53219]

No amount of rationalization for how corner crossing “violates a person’s property rights” will make sense to 95% of the general public because the general public deals with it on a daily occurrence. This morning before work I counted 3 people that “violated” my airspace on their way to school and work by walking and hanging their hand over my property line. It doesn’t bother me in the least bit because I’m not trying to financially benefit from whatever’s on the other side of my property line.

In this case, a large portion of the ranching community has found themselves in an echo chamber trying to rationalize something that only they see a problem with.

This is a great way of putting it. People are always letting their dogs chit in my yard, some enter to pick it up, others leave it. I could care less and pick it up when I mow because I like to be a good neighbor. Some even cross the corner of my yard from public to public. But when it comes to some remote piece of public land that might have an elusive trophy, private landowners and outfitters get all worked up about crossing a corner from public to public and their “airspace”. Privatizing public land by saying corner crossing is illegal will never make sense to me.

 

[Deleted member 53219]

Sadly in eastern Montana your best chance at a quality animal is just being at the right place at the right time when the buck or bull of your dreams jumps the fence. All of the places I mention are sounded by lightly hunted private land. Even though those places are hunted hard there is always a chance that you will be the lucky guy and this is what keeps people coming back. Public land accessed by corner hopping will be the same.
Now take for example the places on the Custer that are 2+ miles from the road. I think that there are fewer hunters in those place now than there was in the early 90's, The difference now is that those place have far fewer deer during the season. Hunters down, but hunters per deer up. I haven't spent much time in the west, but judging by the Gallatin check station numbers I would guess the same is true with elk in parts of western MT. @Hopzone Freak would know.

In the early 90’s you could still drive into all those places, there were very few, if any, places 2+ miles from a road. Now on a Tuesday afternoon you can see orange on every ridge or hear a hoochie momma in just about every draw, because the cool thing on social media is to be an “ultralight, DIY, Backcountry, Public Land” hunter, and the places close to the road are “too crowded”, it’s all crowded now. I think it’s worse now than the early 90’s. Less accessible private to hunt, more hunters hunting less accessible land hunting less deer

 

[Point Creep]

To steal a famous line…

What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine..

 

[rogerthat]

In the early 90’s you could still drive into all those places, there were very few, if any, places 2+ miles from a road. Now on a Tuesday afternoon you can see orange on every ridge or hear a hoochie momma in just about every draw, because the cool thing on social media is to be an “ultralight, DIY, Backcountry, Public Land” hunter, and the places close to the road are “too crowded”, it’s all crowded now. I think it’s worse now than the early 90’s. Less accessible private to hunt, more hunters hunting less accessible land hunting less deer

It’s all about setting yourself apart from everyone else. That’s why I like to be an ultra heavy, DIY, backcountry hunter. Go in heavy come out light. If you ain’t snacking you ain’t backpacking

 

[Big Fin]

U.S. vs Causby

But it does address air space and who owns it. I’m guessing that’s what Eric is talking about as I read it as well.

It is helpful for the public case that some think Causby is a good defense for the ownership of airspace. I went over that case in great detail with legal minds. Even though the landowner won his case for damages caused by jets flying immediately low over his chicken farm, the Court issued some great findings in their conclusion that a landowner only has right to the airspace needed for enjoyment of their property; the rest of the airspace belongs to nobody.

To quote one of the Court's findings and conclusions in the Causby case....

Held 1. (a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.

Having reviewed this with two attorneys and two law professors, their interpretation is that this case gives a lot more strength to the hunters in the Wyoming civil suit than it does to the landowner claiming damages. The facts of this case are so different that it is not comparable to crossing at a corner.

The Court did award $2,000 for damages due to the continual low-flying jet disturbance. And the court held that such jet traffic had effectively taken an easement over Causby's property without compensation.

Yet in their findings, the Court also stated what I have quoted above. And the Court also explained that nobody owns the airspace, rather the airspace cannot be disturbed to a degree that it infringes on a landowner's right to beneficial use of his property. That case did not state there is an ownership right to all airspace over real property, rather the landowner's beneficial use and enjoyment of his property cannot be infringed by use of the airspace. To extend that to crossing at corners, the landowner's right to beneficial use of his property is not infringed by someone stepping over this common airspace at the corners.

In Causby, the Court failed to rule on the nature or duration of the implied easement that landowner said was taken by low-flying military jets. So, according to the legal minds I've been advised by, this case does not define or extend any rights, granted or implied, to a landowner, other than what is necessary for the landowner to have beneficial use of their real property.

The Court of Claims granted respondents a judgment for the value of property destroyed and damage to their property resulting from the taking of an easement over their property by low-flying military aircraft of the United States, but failed to include in its findings of fact a specific description of the nature or duration of the easement. 104 Ct.Cls. 342, 60 F. Supp. 751. This Court granted certiorari. 327 U.S. 775. Reversed and remanded, p. 328 U. S. 268.

Given the analysis of two attorneys and two law professors, I would love to see the Wyoming case decided on the rationale the Courts published in the Causby case. Facts and circumstances matter. The facts and circumstances of the Wyoming case and Causby are as similar as apples and snow tires.

Base on what attorneys have explained to me, for the sake of the four hunters in the Wyoming case let's hope the Court uses Causby as their basis of findings.

Last month I met with the attorneys again to plan a third podcast to explore the civil case against these hunters in more detail, what the case could have for possible outcomes, and what those outcomes would mean to the public and landowners who have historically controlled corners. We are recording that next podcast in a couple weeks. We are planning a fourth podcast, once the civil case is decided.

Even though the civil case could still be decided against the hunters, a ton of thanks to the four hunters from Missouri, Wyoming BHA, @JM77, and @BuzzH for pushing this case to the point it is at today. Even if the Court decides this to be civil trespass and the hunters do not prevail, a lot of good has come from the work of these people when it comes to sorting out this issue.

 

[Deleted member 53219]

It’s all about setting yourself apart from everyone else. That’s why I like to be an ultra heavy, DIY, backcountry hunter. Go in heavy come out light. If you ain’t snacking you ain’t backpacking

You’re a trendsetter. I like that. Don’t want to starve back there

 

[El Jason]

It’s interesting how the argument on legality of corner crossing is now intermingled with social management vs biological management.

 

[shoots-straight]

Randy Newberg is much faster then I at responses. Makes it easier for me I guess.



Thanks Randy.

 

[antlerradar]

In the early 90’s you could still drive into all those places, there were very few, if any, places 2+ miles from a road. Now on a Tuesday afternoon you can see orange on every ridge or hear a hoochie momma in just about every draw, because the cool thing on social media is to be an “ultralight, DIY, Backcountry, Public Land” hunter, and the places close to the road are “too crowded”, it’s all crowded now. I think it’s worse now than the early 90’s. Less accessible private to hunt, more hunters hunting less accessible land hunting less deer

The riding and hike areas were established in the mid 80's, I remember setting on the hill between North and South fork of Poker Jim and glassing up 4 other groups of hunters in the early 90's. I could you do that today, maybe. Back in the 90's you might be able to spot fifty deer, that is not happening today.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

These trespassers are getting so bad that one even put snowmobile tracks in my yard 2' outside the county road ROW last week.