MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"

[Irrelevant]

I think Wys game management is better by most metrics,

Some very broad brush metrics brought to you by Chat:

WY offers ~42k NR deer and elk tags; Montana about 2x that to NRs, 80k.
WY sells ~130k R deer and elk tags; MT sells a little less than 300k tags to Rs, 2.3x
WY is 97k sq miles; MT is 147k sq miles, 1.5x

Montana simply sells too many tags.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Montana simply sells too many tags.

I agree - to an extent. Because the tags are so comically cheap - i think theres a sizable population that buys them and doesnt hunt much or at all. A fishing lic is 31 dollars or 16.50 for people older than 62 or younger than 17. A sportsman without bear is 64.50 and 32.25 . Its basically 30 more dollars to "just have it" for someone who goes fishing.

Nearly every NR tag is going to get hunted.

 

[mountainlaurel3]

By not hearing the appeal from the lower court in the Wyoming case, they essentially have said that they agree with the ruling.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, but alas, it's not true from a constitutional law perspective. They could have any number of reasons to decline to take up the case.

That being said, if I was in Montana I'd be crossing corners whenever I pleased, while being sure to locate the exact corner and not step foot on private land. Just like in WY, if it came to a civil claim, good luck to the plaintiff's attorney re: showing damages for the violation of their airspace.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree - to an extent. Because the tags are so comically cheap - i think theres a sizable population that buys them and doesnt hunt much or at all. A fishing lic is 31 dollars or 16.50 for people older than 62 or younger than 17. A sportsman without bear is 64.50 and 32.25 . Its basically 30 more dollars to "just have it" for someone who goes fishing.

Nearly every NR tag is going to get hunted.

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

 

[mtmuley]

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

You would be surprised at the amount of people that buy a tag "just in case". Not everyone is a hunter. And those are the ones that would complain about a cost increase the most. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

If that were the case, there would be less complaining from Rs about any potential increase in cost because they could simply not buy one if they aren't planning to hunt it.

That is the case, i know several people like that.

A very vocal contingent are against that. And a majority are against paying more without cuts to NR.

 

[Irrelevant]

Nearly every NR tag is going to get hunted.

For like a week right? Versus a R might hunt for 10 weeks.

You have an R problem. You also probably have an NR problem, but it's pretty easy to price them out/down.

 

[mtmuley]

For like a week right? Versus a R might hunt for 10 weeks.

I doubt many residents hunt 10 weeks. I know quite a few that don't hunt 10 minutes. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

I doubt many residents hunt 10 weeks. I know quite a few that don't hunt 10 minutes. mtmuley

Anyone who wants to allocate that much time and money isnt going to spend it hunting here.

 

[SAJ-99]

That is the case, i know several people like that.

A very vocal contingent are against that. And a majority are against paying more without cuts to NR.

I understand there are people that do that. As a resident, I did that for Turkey- bought a permit every year and never hunted turkey. But it isn't material. As Irrelevant points out, NR had 184k hunter days (6.8 per hunter), Rs had almost 1,016k (which is 8.7) NRs commit to the tag. If there are as many R as you guys want us to believe, they are skewing the harvest stats (which everyone thinks are wrong, so we don't really get anywhere).

And those are the ones that would complain about a cost increase the most. mtmuley

Maybe, and they shouldn't be listened to. The fact still remains, the cheap tags are part of the problem. Make R pay and commit to the privilege they hold so highly. Having a permit in the visor incase a deer crosses the road isn't justification for the cheap tags. Simple Math. Increase the R price and decrease the number of NR tags. (easier to type than to accomplish, LOL)

 

[mtmuley]

Maybe, and they shouldn't be listened to. The fact still remains, the cheap tags are part of the problem. Make R pay and commit to the privilege they hold so highly. Having a permit in the visor incase a deer crosses the road isn't justification for the cheap tags. Simple Math. Increase the R price and decrease the number of NR tags. (easier to type than to accomplish, LOL)

I have never and you will never hear me complain about a resident tag increase in Montana. I understand the issues. mtmuley

 

[cgasner1]

I doubt many residents hunt 10 weeks. I know quite a few that don't hunt 10 minutes. mtmuley

Guilty but the pack out was to easy

 

[mtmuley]

Guilty but the pack out was to easy

You are the problem. mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

I have never and you will never hear me complain about a resident tag increase in Montana. I understand the issues. mtmuley

I think that is the case for most MT Rs on HT. You get it. You just can't fix it.

 

[mtmuley]

I think that is the case for most MT Rs on HT. You get it. You just can't fix it.

Yep. You nailed it. And too many residents here don't hold the same values about mule deer in Montana like this bunch. mtmuley

 

[rogerthat]

This should be an interesting meeting…

Director requests PLPW take up corner crossing issue at June meeting in Glasgow

content.govdelivery.com

Back on topic. Does anyone find the directors comments interesting in this press release? Earlier statements “corner crossing is illegal and has always been”. Now for this “we need to find some solutions”. Why Christy? You said it’s illegal.

 

[SAJ-99]

Back on topic. Does anyone find the directors comments interesting in this press release? Earlier statements “corner crossing is illegal and has always been”. Now for this “we need to find some solutions”. Why Christy? You said it’s illegal.

I read it as "solutions"="payments". But I am well aware that after the last 15months I have been conditioned to equate everything to $$$, particularly when it is related to those things that have a weak chance of being enforced in a court of law.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Well I sure hope the solutions are truly equitable. Considering 85% of the landlocked pieces I have encountered have a road somewhere leading to them, the public has been shafted too long and it’s led to a staunch belief that the public lands isolated in big ranches no longer belong to the public at all. It’s simply not true! I’m NOT willing to see landowners get payments or anything extra for access in the way of stipends or subsidies or any of that—unless it’s about a NEW road for NEW access. That’s my opinion.
The negotiation should be largely one sided. We already own it. You can blame whatever you want, but it would be the person that committed the trespass-it’s not “due to” corner crossing or the potential legalization that would lead someone onto your ranch.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Am I the only one confused as to how the director of a state wildlife agency can declare that accessing federal public is illegal when there is (a. No federal or state statute that specifically forbids pedestrian travel across a checkerboard parcel) and
(b. No successful prosecution of corner crossing “trespass in MT’s history) ?

If she were talking about Montana state owned school trust property and the MT legislature had passed legislation making corner crossing on state land illegal it might be a different conversation.

This is the equivalent of the head of a subdivision HOA declaring that they can determine building code for the houses in that subdivision based on the fact that they can intimidate and make life miserable for the homeowner if they don’t comply with the HOA president’s opinion of what should be allowed.

We’re getting caught up in the merits of the argument rather than bringing the fact that the Director of FWP cannot dictate federal statute or policy regarding access to public federal property.

FWP director can instruct FWP wardens to issue citations as a deterrent for people to not corner cross. That deterrent isn’t because corner crossing is illegal and is trespass, it’s because folks don’t want to be harassed and have to bear the cost of defending themselves in court.

It’s intimidation pure and simple and in my opinion a clear cut violation of the unlawful enclosures act that in layman’s terms forbids excluding entry to public lands by physical barriers or threats and intimidation.

 

[Rack Daniels]

The unlawful enclosures act that in layman’s terms forbids excluding entry to public lands by physical barriers or threats and intimidation.

Has there ever been any real enforcement of this in Montana?