MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"

[TOGIE]

As for giving an opinion/clarification on whether a policy or law is "legal" during the sausage making, my experience is that those who care gather as many lawyers that will agree with their interpretation as they can and write massive briefs as to why they are right. That doesn't mean it will pass a true legal test down the road. I just don't think the courts have a role to step in during the sausage making. Takes the lawmaking out of the hands of the voter via their elected reps. It would be faster in a lot of cases assuming the courts rule the way you want them to. If they didn't, well .....

no i don't think anyone is saying the courts should or do have a roll in the sausage making, just that the Lieutenant Governor is trying to make sausage without pork.

pork that may or may not exist until courts can settle the matter.

bit of a schrodingers cat, corner crossing is.

 

[Big Fin]

I might be dense or splitting hairs, but I am still not following your argument. You want "a court" to clarify the issue but not the 9th? A Montana court then? If MT did that and another court, say in CA, rules the opposite, then the 9th would get it. If a MT court ruled CC is illegal and someone is convicted, an appeal to the 9th seems highly likely. Whether the 9th points to the ruling of the 10th and says "we agree" is anyone's guess.

As for giving an opinion/clarification on whether a policy or law is "legal" during the sausage making, my experience is that those who care gather as many lawyers that will agree with their interpretation as they can and write massive briefs as to why they are right. That doesn't mean it will pass a true legal test down the road. I just don't think the courts have a role to step in during the sausage making. Takes the lawmaking out of the hands of the voter via their elected reps. It would be faster in a lot of cases assuming the courts rule the way you want them to. If they didn't, well .....

I'm not sure where you get that I'm asking a court to do anything right now. I'm not.

I am stating that the role of the courts is to clarify the legality of corner crossing in Montana, not EQC, not the Lt. Governor, nor any other politicians. Clarity will happen in time, through court cases, maybe legislation, maybe some other mechanism outside the 10th Circuit. I'm not trying to force that.

We all benefit from clarification, not political posturing. The effort of the Lt. Gov. is tainted due to the approach and who has been made privy to her presentation. This is about politics and about trying to use the position of power to avoid the scrutiny of law, like what the Wyoming case was subjected to.

 

[Alpine01]

I'm not sure where you get that I'm asking a court to do anything right now. I'm not.

Ok. I read that you wanted the courts to provide clarity on the issue rather the Lt. Gov or any other politician and that clarity was in lieu of what the Lt Gov. is trying to do now. So clarity now was the priority. Thanks for making that distinction. In terms of final clarity on the issue, then yes, the courts need to do that.

I am stating that the role of the courts is to clarify the legality of corner crossing in Montana, not EQC, not the Lt. Governor, nor any other politicians. Clarity will happen in time, through court cases, maybe legislation, maybe some other mechanism outside the 10th Circuit. I'm not trying to force that.

Copy. Agree. In due time.

The effort of the Lt. Gov. is tainted due to the approach and who has been made privy to her presentation.

No doubt. But if she is building a legal basis on which to set CC policy, it doesn't surprise me a bit that she keeps the details pretty close to the vest until she is ready to set that policy in motion in public. Doesn't mean it will pass the court review at a later time. If she is trying to define new law outside of the legislative process, then she has overstepped her authority and the Legislature should step in/step up and do their job.

This is about politics and about trying to use the position of power to avoid the scrutiny of law, like what the Wyoming case was subjected to.

No doubt what the Lt Gov. is doing has a large degree of political posturing. A very large fraction of lawmaking is all about politics. Not sure I see the avoidance of scrutiny of the law though. As a member of the Executive branch, if she can find an existing law on the books that can be used as a basis to "enforce" CC as an illegal activity, she has every right to do so. The courts can provide that scrutiny if/when someone is convicted of an illegal CC or when a private landowner files a suit against a supposed trespasser which is what prompted the 10th's review and ruling. So scrutiny will happen, but perhaps much later than anyone would like. Personally, I think the Lt Gov should point to the 10th's ruling as to why CC is already considered legal and let those applying the pressure go pound sand. But as you say, this is a political move. Voters will ultimately decide whether that was a good or bad political decision.

 

[seeth07]

It may not be the best way to go and may cost a lot more money but technically if Montana wants to go ahead and pass a state law thru whatever means they wish to get there, doesn't that directly open the door for an organization that is pro public lands to fight it? They can file suit against the state of Montana for the law being unconstitutional in which hopefully the 9th circuit court takes up the case? and if the 9th circuit court takes up the case and rules in favor of it being illegal, isn't it almost certain to go to the supreme court to determine whether the 9th or 10th court is right?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I had heard this was coming, but the release of the agenda this morning confirms such.

Lt. Governor has taken it upon herself to determine that corner crossing is "illegal." She is doing this, absent any case or other legal finding beyond "because we/I said so."

This is the effort in Montana to plant the stake in the ground. Why the Lt. Gov has decided to do this is hard to understand. Yeah, she is an attorney. Yet, no attorney I know, many who are experienced in property law, agrees that there is any statutory or other law to support this claim. There is an old AG opinion indicating such, but most agree that was a politically pressured twisting of law.

Why the Lt. Gov wants to do this now, and why EQC Chairman Fielder is allowing only her to give testimony, seem peculiar. You cannot create law via administrative rule, such as EQC has the power to do.

Here is the agenda. May 13th - https://committees.legmt.gov/#/nonStandingCommittees/5?tab=Meeting+Materials

Here is a screenshot from that agenda:

View attachment 407708


I would suggest all of you to reach out and comment here (the Gov and Lt. Gov have the same contact portal) - https://governor.mt.gov/contact/

If law is going to be made on this topic, I want the courts to make that determination, not a politician who is likely seeking election after the current Gov's lame duck administration expires.

In your opinion, is it a waste of time to try and get a large group to attend this meeting for public comment like you've mentioned similar was done years ago? More so just curious why commenting via the governor's portal vs. commenting either in person or digitally during the meeting like Gerald mentioned above?

 

[Alpine01]

no i don't think anyone is saying the courts should or do have a roll in the sausage making, just that the Lieutenant Governor is trying to make sausage without pork.

pork that may or may not exist until courts can settle the matter.

bit of a schrodingers cat, corner crossing is.

Not sure I agree. FWP is part of the Executive Branch. The Lt Gov., as head of the Executive Branch (assuming the Gov has delegated this authority), looks to be defining a policy on how the Executive Branch, through the FWP, is going to interpret existing laws relative to CC legality or is building the rationale behind a proposed bill to define what is and isn't legal, working with a compliant legislator, to be submitted for future consideration. Either approach is fully within her statutory authority to do so, so the pork exists, either fully ground or still in large chunks that need to be refined. I think the bigger concern is how the EQC responds to her presentation. Do the agree and say nothing or do they push back and assert that new law is needed that has a better than average chance of passing judicial review.

 

[Big Fin]

In your opinion, is it a waste of time to try and get a large group to attend this meeting for public comment like you've mentioned similar was done years ago?

I believe that would have limited benefit at an EQC meeting, such as was derived from a full Capitol building during a legislative session. Looking at most of the members, they are also elected officials and they mostly align with the Lt. Gov. The chair is Paul Fielder. It seems if he wanted open discourse and consideration of other opinions, there would be a qualified legal expert presenting a counter argument to the Lt. Gov, and lot of time for public comments. Better yet would be if the presentation was put out for public review prior to the hearing, so we would know what is going to be said.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I believe that would have limited benefit at an EQC meeting, such as was derived from a full Capitol building during a legislative session. Looking at most of the members, they are also elected officials and they mostly align with the Lt. Gov. The chair is Paul Fielder. It seems if he wanted open discourse and consideration of other opinions, there would be a qualified legal expert presenting a counter argument to the Lt. Gov, and lot of time for public comments. Better yet would be if the presentation was put out for public review prior to the hearing, so we would know what is going to be said.

That is really frustrating. It's hard for me to reconcile elected officials willingness to blatantly ignore their constituents concerns for either their own priorities or priorities of those they "align" with, but that seems to be the norm in todays discourse.

 

[Big Fin]

Not sure I agree. FWP is part of the Executive Branch. The Lt Gov., as head of the Executive Branch (assuming the Gov has delegated this authority), looks to be defining a policy on how the Executive Branch, through the FWP, is going to interpret existing laws relative to CC legality or is building the rationale behind a proposed bill to define what is and isn't legal, working with a compliant legislator, to be submitted for future consideration. Either approach is fully within her statutory authority to do so, so the pork exists, either fully ground or still in large chunks that need to be refined. I think the bigger concern is how the EQC responds to her presentation. Do the agree and say nothing or do they push back and assert that new law is needed that has a better than average chance of passing judicial review.

I think that is exactly the rationale for this being brought to the group, at this time.

I suspect they are aware of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act. If they are going to take a position/action where the MAPA applies, they would be well-served to follow such. They may feel MAPA doesn't apply and therefore they can disregard. Or, they know they have the control so they can ignore MAPA and just push it down the throats.

There is also concern with using FWP as an agent in this effort. FWP has to walk a fine line between the interests of so many people, including both hunters and landowners whose good stewardship provides a lot of wildlife. Using FWP as the main agent in this political effort has long-term negative consequences to the agency and its ability to maintain trust among its many diverse constituents.

I've known this effort was brewing for quite a while. Last fall I got a text from a legislator about a discussion with new FWP Director Clark. The legislator's first comment was (verbatim) "She said you were trying to get ticketed for corner crossing."

That's complete BS. I've never corner crossed in MT and I'm not trying to get ticketed for doing so. For the Director of FWP to be saying stuff like that in public, to legislators, makes me wonder where she is getting her information. And not that it really matters where she gets her information. What matters is that FWP is being used as the agent to make legal claims that are unfounded, especially unfounded in light of what happened in the 10th Circuit and the failure of the USSC to take the case.

This is part of my long reply as to how far off base that rumor was.

Until that exchange and the FWP rumors about me trying to get ticketed, I really hadn't given the topic much worry in Montana. After that, I've started listening and asking for what efforts might be underway as it relates to corner crossing. And from what I've learned in the last few months, none of this comes as a surprise.

I've said it many times - if the courts rule corner crossing is illegal and a damaging trespass to the landowner, then such is how it is. We move forward with that clarification. But that's not how the courts have ruled recently.

 

[Alpine01]

I think that is exactly the rationale for this being brought to the group, at this time.

There is also concern with using FWP as an agent in this effort. FWP has to walk a fine line between the interests of so many people, including both hunters and landowners whose good stewardship provides a lot of wildlife. Using FWP as the main agent in this political effort has long-term negative consequences to the agency and its ability to maintain trust among its many diverse constituents.

I've known this effort was brewing for quite a while. Last fall I got a text from a legislator about a discussion with new FWP Director Clark. The legislator's first comment was (verbatim) "She said you were trying to get ticketed for corner crossing."

Thanks Randy. I don't disagree with any of your points. CO has been using CPW in similar fashion to push agendas contrary to their broader stakeholder interests.

The reference to you wanting to corner-cross and get a ticket probably traces back to the planned crossing in the Crazy Mountains you considered many years ago but never did. It was referenced in a March, 2026 news story on CC issues in Montana. As such, any story will do whether the context is valid or not if it meets a political purpose. Sad.

 

[Big Fin]

Hmm. The March 2026 story referenced what I contemplated in 2013(?). The text exchange with the legislator was five months prior to the March 2026 story, so I doubt that was the source of Director Clark's statement.

Not that any of that really matters. It's just the background why I've been keep close tabs on this issue recently. And why I'll keep tabs on who is lurking on this thread. These kind of topics draw a lot of anonymous interest from some interesting IPs/ISPs.

 

[Dave N]

So if a retired guy with time on his hands were to come out and do some bird hunting since he can't get a tag for other things, would there be any specific corners that are more likely to be an issue that would result in charges? Sounds like someone needs to take one for the team.

 

[Alpine01]

Hmm. The March 2026 story referenced what I contemplated in 2013(?). The text exchange with the legislator was five months prior to the March 2026 story, so I doubt that was the source of Director Clark's statement.

I was thinking more along the lines of if someone can dig that story up for a March 2026 story after 13 years have passed, then it is still floating out in the ether and wouldn't be too hard to find last fall and knowingly or unknowingly assign it as a recent event. But that is all speculation.

 

[rogerthat]

I’m not seeing how this changes a thing other than more state level intimidation. This comment is not meant to mean we shouldn’t all comment as we should let our govt officials know when they err however any pinned federal corner to federal corner is fair game UIA interpretation of the 10th circuit ruling. Obviously might need a bank account set aside to vigorously defend oneself. The state officials can say whatever or do whatever they want but I think this just makes it more likely to get a case in front of the ninth circuit which is what’s needed ultimately anyway. Bring it on you state govt snowflakes!

Edit: to add this likely spells doom for a state land corner cross but we already knew state land management is garbage

 

[Hunting Wife]

That is really frustrating. It's hard for me to reconcile elected officials willingness to blatantly ignore their constituents concerns for either their own priorities or priorities of those they "align" with, but that seems to be the norm in todays discourse.

They ignore their constituents all the time, and are rewarded with re-election.

 

[INMT]

Edit: to add this likely spells doom for a state land corner cross but we already knew state land management is garbage

I’ve got a state chunk I corner cross whenever I draw an antelope tag. Luckily I’ve met the landowner and he couldn’t give two squirts.

 

[Wildabeest]

So if a retired guy with time on his hands were to come out and do some bird hunting since he can't get a tag for other things, would there be any specific corners that are more likely to be an issue that would result in charges? Sounds like someone needs to take one for the team.

If your dog jumps a corner, are you liable?

 

[Pucky Freak]

Would someone cross a friggin’ corner already.