Montana Corner Crossing Updated?

[Eric24]

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.

Exactly how I see it. Honestly, if someone transits across my corner pin to access the state land behind my house to go hunting I could not care less. I believe it says way more about the person who is upset about it than the person doing it. If one pretends to be that upset about their shoulder width airspace being violated for 1 step, I think it is a pretty dishonest argument. Why not just admit the issue is a desire to monopolize (and monetize) the publicly owned asset beyond your property line.

 

[300stw]

There is the unresolved issue of legality.

Then there is this, what does the corner hopping public generally do when out of sight and that big bull/buck is just off the public and on the private? 2 miles from the road and out of sight, good odds it’s illegally taken(I’m sure you’d never do this, but many would/do) as a footnote I had a guy do this exact thing this fall(claimed to me many, many times over the years).”I’d never shoot one across the line and drag it over”. We’ll, this year he did, the fresh snow is a great teller of tales. Cliff note, he lost his deer and was fined.

this happens everyday, dont throw corner crossing into that argument,,,idiots are idiots,,,

 

[TOGIE]

i've been thinking today about how often my dog shits in someones yard while i'm walking her and i have to go walk up there and scoop it up with a baggy.

can't figure out why the sheriff hasn't been knocking on my door yet given what the boys hunting in wyoming are being sued millions for

 

[300stw]

Be honest (I don’t expect anyone to be on a public forum, but you never know, anonymity has its perks!) let’s say corner crossing is legal, you’ve checkerboard crossed 5 miles from the nearest road, and there stands a 210 inch mule deer buck out of sight except to you, a satellite and God… he’s within 5 ft of the private/blm boundary.. just barely on the private, no fence boundary, just an imaginary line on your On-x….which could be or probably is off a few feet. I’m sure you’d not pull the trigger, but you’re in the minority.

would you or your guides let your paying client shoot the deer in the same scenario,,,,i imagine many people guided or diy guys would shoot the deer, no different then how many guys leave the montana bar and drive home legally intoxicated, all about morals, pretty hard to enforce morals,,

 

[300stw]

View attachment 258567
A quick look at an area Mr. Albus leases is probably the most powerful evidence as to why he doesn’t like corner crossing.

ive often thought about the idea of government selling these parcels to highest bidders,
with proceeds mandated to purchase blocks of accesible land, can you imagine if a tycoon from alabama bought all these but then found out he had no access, value wouldnt be much i imagine, but if corner crossing was legal, would the value be additive,,, not picking on albus. but the picture drives the point home, how many of those corners could you cross in a day or 2, if i could use my mule, a hell of a lot, on foot, not nearly as many,,,

 

[cgasner1]

This entire thing is ridiculous and wrong these guys aren’t worried about the land getting trashed they are more worried about the guy willing to bust his ass and put on 5-6 miles across some Cherokee boarded property to kill a mature animal. This ha nothing to do with taking care of the ground or we would be closing down forests and blm. Think they would be more worried about the guy that hikes a mile across their property to a country road instead of zig zagging back those 5-6 miles

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

And the reverse is true as well. The hunting public is attempting to rationalize something only they see a problem with.

To sum the whole argument, if the checkerboard section held same quality as the rest of public land Montana??? Well, the public would really care less about accessing it. If corner crossing were legal(someday it may be) what little quality exists will be gone, nearly overnight.

 

[Eric Albus]

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....



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.



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.

I’d like to see the case resolved as well, and can see the points you are making, but think that we can all agree that as a landowner you’re entitled to some degree of airspace over your property.

 

[Irishman]

And the reverse is true as well. The hunting public is attempting to rationalize something only they see a problem with.

To sum the whole argument, if the checkerboard section held same quality as the rest of public land Montana??? Well, the public would really care less about accessing it. If corner crossing were legal(someday it may be) what little quality exists will be gone, nearly overnight.

If corner crossing was made illegal then that quality would be lost to the public overnight, and with it access to thousands of acres of huntable public land.

 

[300stw]

why should a select few be able to utilize the landlocked land? why is it there right?

why do so many of inaccesible public parcels have roads and 4 wheeler trails on them? spend some time on google earth, chg the time of year, the scars blow me away,,,

maybe were getting to the point that inaccesible means everyone, what would that look like? how would the general public make up the budgetary shortfall?

 

[BuzzH]

I’d like to see the case resolved as well, and can see the points you are making, but think that we can all agree that as a landowner you’re entitled to some degree of airspace over your property.

Sure, your problem is you're looking at the airspace of only half the owners.

As a public land owner with a 50 percent stake of that airspace, I'm/we're entitled to our degree of airspace over that corner.

Why do you feel the only degree of airspace that anyone should be entitled to is the private landowner?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Why do you feel the only degree of airspace that anyone should be entitled to is the private landowner?

Apparently to preserve the quality of hunting in those parcels.

 

[Mountain Mule]

If corner crossing was made illegal then that quality would be lost to the public overnight, and with it access to thousands of acres of huntable public land.

Thousands. Millions*

 

[Sytes]

...case 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...
...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.

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.

A subjective opinion that a private owner must have exclusive control - except certain portions of private property. That would be the same to say, "because a private owner doesn't use 1/3 of the private land, s/he is not using nor benefiting the enjoyment of the private land." Whether inches or acres, it's private property, objectively speaking referenced with the quote below.

The Court stated the following, when determining the difference between "has no place in the modern world" and what constitutes private ownership:

"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that, if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere... The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material."

I don't believe Causby is a valuable tool for sake of the hunter's defense. Certain select segments may hold some value though the core is in support of the private owner.

I am well aware most here, including myself, support corner crossing and believe it to be legal though I'm of the opinion, Causby is not the case to declare a value for the hunters. IMO, the hopeful knock-out for ALL States comes from 1885 UIA, specifically addressed in, Camfield v United States.

Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)

Camfield v. United States

supreme.justia.com

This was a bill in equity, originally filed by the United States in the Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, to compel the removal and abatement of a fence erected and maintained by the defendants whereby about 20,000 acres of public lands were enclosed and appropriated to the exclusive use and benefit of the defendants.

The bill averred in substance that the defendants Daniel A. Camfield and William Drury, with intent to encroach and intrude upon the lands of the United States in an illegal manner, and to monopolize the use of the same for their own special benefit, did on or about the 1st of January, 1893, construct and maintain a fence which enclosed and included about 20,000 acres of the public domain, that the effect of such enclosure was to exclude the United States and all other persons except the defendants therefrom, and that the lands thus wrongfully enclosed consisted of all of the even-numbered sections in townships numbered 7 and 8 north, of range 63 west, of the sixth principal meridian.

AND, in conclusion:

The violation of the statute is nonetheless manifest from the fact that the defendants had an ulterior purpose, or a purpose other than that of pasturage.
We are of opinion that, in passing the act in question, Congress exercised its constitutional right of protecting the public lands from nuisances erected upon adjoining property, that the act is valid, and that the judgment of the circuit court of appeals must be Affirmed.

 

[WIbiggame]

So @Eric Albus let's take hypothetically here.

Corner crossing is deemed illegal without landowner consent. With the stipulation that if a private landowner has to corner cross public land to get to the rest of their private and they DONT allow public corner crossing they (private) landowner can't cross the public corner.

Or to make it more realistic they can use the public all they want but it is all deemed Wilderness thus no wheeled traffic through the public and no grazing rights on said public.

Would you support that? I mean just think of all the benefits to wildlife it would supply. Millions of private and public acres game could thrive on?

 

[Eric Albus]

I don’t know of any private landowner who has to “corner hop” to gain access to their private, I’d suppose there are some, just none I know of.

 

[Eric Albus]

Sure, your problem is you're looking at the airspace of only half the owners.

As a public land owner with a 50 percent stake of that airspace, I'm/we're entitled to our degree of airspace over that corner.

Why do you feel the only degree of airspace that anyone should be entitled to is the private landowner?

Is the landowner not a stake holder being a “public landowner” as well as being a stake holder owning the surface rights to said lands?

 

[Elktrack]

Is the landowner not a stake holder being a “public landowner” as well as being a stake holder owning the surface rights to said lands?

Starting to wonder if you are a landowner with property bordering public???
Kinda seems like you’re advocating more favorably for private ownership rather than public. Just curious.

 

[Irishman]

Is there any logic behind making corner crossing illegal? Nobody really cares if your shoulders infringe on the corner of their land, or even if your foot stepped on their land for a second. It's all about outfitters and private landowners trying to keep you away from public land and public wildlife that they want for themselves.
There are two kinds of outfitters. The ones that pack people deep into the Wilderness to hopefully have an adventure/hunt, and those that lease private land. The private land outfitters main objective is to make it as easy as possible for their client to kill an animal, by whatever means possible, legal or illegal. They spend their time trying to keep the general public away from "their" wildlife and keeping the wildlife away from the public. These quasi outfitters are of course against corner crossing, the last thing they want is competition on lands they hunt.
I only know two people who have hunted with outfitters on private land. Different outfitters, different ranches, same illegal activities in order to keep elk on private land during hunting season.

 

[BuzzH]

Is the landowner not a stake holder being a “public landowner” as well as being a stake holder owning the surface rights to said lands?

The private land owner does not own the surface rights to any public lands. Public land surface rights are held in trust for 340 million Americans.