MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"

[Wildabeest]

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.

Please don’t give them any ideas.

 

[Pucky Freak]

This should be an interesting meeting…

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

content.govdelivery.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

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.

We are getting caught up in the political move where the Governor, FWP Director, and now Lt. Gov Juras are declaring corner crossing unlawful, with arguments before the legislative interim EQC committee setting the stage for a 2027 piece of Montana legislation to create an actual law against corner crossing in Montana.
Hopefully, the recent lawsuit will end that conspiracy.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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

Im no attorney - but the point the core of their legal argument comes down to the private airspace adjacent to the federal land - not the federal land. You are breaking 2 theoretical planes of private property momentarily.

Lt Gov Juras said that the unlawful enclosures act does not apply, for the reason noted in red below.

 

[sclancy27]

Im no attorney - but the point the core of their legal argument comes down to the private airspace adjacent to the federal land - not the federal land. You are breaking 2 theoretical planes of private property momentarily.

Lt Gov Juras said that the unlawful enclosures act does not apply, for the reason noted in red below.


View attachment 409274

That's literally the same argument they made in the WY case and lost.

 

[SAJ-99]

Im no attorney - but the point the core of their legal argument comes down to the private airspace adjacent to the federal land - not the federal land. You are breaking 2 theoretical planes of private property momentarily.

Lt Gov Juras said that the unlawful enclosures act does not apply, for the reason noted in red below.


View attachment 409274

I don’t understand the reason in red. As soon as the post is driven on the corner, it violated the even sections.

 

[Forkyfinder]

That's literally the same argument they made in the WY case and lost.

I don’t understand the reason in red. As soon as the post is driven on the corner, it violated the even sections.

Im not defending it.

Just sharing what the counter argument would be. It isnt completely fabricated bs - the court did allude to the fence could have been built on the individual sections. Its not quite black and white like shes trying to make it sound.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Im no attorney ...

Stop right there. When we start attempting to discuss the complexities of this issue as though presenting legal arguments, then we are presenting as though we have some legal expertise. Gerald Martin's phrase "getting caught up" is one to consider as most of us are quick to jump into the rabbit hole of perceived legal arguments, definitions of air space, inclosures and such ... when the more broad and important issue is public access to public lands.

Rather than attempts at armchair litigation analysis and strategy, our role is more impactful as supporters of those with the expertise and knowledge to legally challenge.

 

[SAJ-99]

Im not defending it.

Just sharing what the counter argument would be. It isnt completely fabricated bs - the court did allude to the fence could have been built on the individual sections. Its not quite black and white like shes trying to make it sound.

It is completely wrong. That is not what the judge said at all. The intent of the construction of the fence is what matters. Like I said before, someone should take her law degree away. I can easily create confusion with a "what if". What if two separate landowners each fences their odd sections within the property line with a 2 inch gap created at the pin. This effectively blocks the even section but you have to prove the intent of both was to block the section.

The whole thing is worth a read. It is really about a state making rules that create limitation on federal land. It is a messy situation, so I can see why SCOTUS punted.

 

[antlerradar]

I think Wys game management is better by most metrics, i wasnt trying to say otherwise.

Those hunters still wanted access to public - in a state that many would agree is managed as one of the best for hunting. The desire for access corner locked property has a lot to do with the relatively recent ability to see exactly (within a few ft) where you are standing.

I agree - poor hunting causes more people to look for alternate solutions. Its also true that people will always want better even if good is available. Is there a state/unit where you think leasing/outfitting/hunting rentals arent happening?

Outfitting has always be with us, and likely in every state. The Eatons were taking eastern hunters before 1900. Our neighbors were guiding hunters starting in the forty's. My father took over from them in 65 and guided hunters until the late seventy's. He hunted our place, all of the neighbors and Public land. He never had a hunting lease. There was no need, the quality of the hunting was just as good or even better on the public than on the private ranches. If one of the other ranches had demanded payment he would has simply hunted else where. Ranchers had no leverage when it came to leasing as quality was just as good or better where you could hunt for free. This changed in the 80's. Doug Gardiner told me he signed the first hunting lease in Powder River County in the early 80's. The reason, after the winter of 78 and the resulting die off mule deer he realized that unless he found a way to restrict access, he was no longer going to be able to provide the quality of hunting his clients demanded.
Back in the 70's quality wasn't as big of an issue as it is today. While some of dads clients were after big bucks, there was quite a few that were not very picky. They hunted with him more for the convenience, big antlers were secondary. Today quality is much more important. Quality expands the pool of hunters that are willing to pay for your service. Back in the 80's there was quite a few outfitters hunting the Custer, as the quality declined most of those outfitters left. I think that there is only one left that hunts the forest primarily. The pool of clients that want to pay to hunt the Custer is very small with how poor the quality is. Outfitters are just not going to turn a profit with so few hunters wanting to hunt with you.
What is new today and much more dangerous when it comes to commercialization of wildlife in is the leasing or buying of land for hunting by individuals. This new demand for leases is almost entirely driven by the decline in quality state and country wide.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It is completely wrong. That is not what the judge said at all. The intent of the construction of the fence is what matters. Like I said before, someone should take her law degree away. I can easily create confusion with a "what if". What if two separate landowners each fences their odd sections within the property line with a 2 inch gap created at the pin. This effectively blocks the even section but you have to prove the intent of both was to block the section.

The whole thing is worth a read. It is really about a state making rules that create limitation on federal land. It is a messy situation, so I can see why SCOTUS punted.

View attachment 409276

No disagreement.

Apparently there are people that read it the same - otherwise there may not be a sudden interest in accelerating land swaps with limited dnrc involvement and finding "compromises"

 

[Forkyfinder]

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).

If grandpa bill stops off the highway on a state section 10 mornings for 45 minutes with some coffee hoping the sun comes up and an elk runs out - fwp would say he hunted for 10 days. Or - shuffles his kids/grandkids around on the mountain with a rifle in the truck and hangs out at camp - he hunted the same "days" as anyone else along. You think any NR hunts like that? I know of quite a few R that do.

Hunter days can mean a lot of different things to different people and arent a perfect metric.

I dont have all the answers or a way to quantify it but the idea that "hunter days" are even close to equivalent amongst the average user in the seperate groups simply isnt accurate.

 

[SAJ-99]

If grandpa bill stops off the highway on a state section 10 mornings for 45 minutes with some coffee hoping the sun comes up and an elk runs out - fwp would say he hunted for 10 days. Or - shuffles his kids/grandkids around on the mountain with a rifle in the truck and hangs out at camp - he hunted the same "days" as anyone else along. You think any NR hunts like that? I know of quite a few R that do.

Hunter days can mean a lot of different things to different people and arent a perfect metric.

I dont have all the answers or a way to quantify it but the idea that "hunter days" are even close to equivalent amongst the average user in the seperate groups simply isnt accurate.

People like Grandpa Bill must kill a lot of animals because the success rate on that general tag is pretty good.

 

[Forkyfinder]

People like Grandpa Bill must kill a lot of animals because the success rate on that general tag is pretty good.

Theres some solid state sections.

May i direct you to norris road?

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

Hold the mail. We do sell 80k conservation license. However less than half that number of people show up. The conservation license (CL) is so folks can apply for special permits, they aren’t all coming hunting.

 

[Eric Albus]

Im no attorney - but the point the core of their legal argument comes down to the private airspace adjacent to the federal land - not the federal land. You are breaking 2 theoretical planes of private property momentarily.

Lt Gov Juras said that the unlawful enclosures act does not apply, for the reason noted in red below.


View attachment 409274

I still want a SCOTUS RULING