Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Which part? You actually try to clear your field when there is an unnatural congregation of them????
MT EQC to determine corner crossing as "illegal"
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Which part? You actually try to clear your field when there is an unnatural congregation of them????
Carnage2011
Well-known member
We have ranches here that have killed hundreds of does over the last few years. They aren’t trying to hoard them…they are killing as many as they can. Ranches that had 700-1000 deer Pre-CWD have lowered populations to 25-100.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,798
Adjacent to sheridan by chance?
FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
Brett French 52 mins ago
Montana's millions of acres of private land offer some excellent hunting opportunities—the only catch is gaining the landowner's permission to hunt.
After two days of discussion, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks has been asked to seek a willing landowner to allow corner crossing to test drive a possible solution to what has become a hot-button issue.
The 13-member Private Lands/Public Wildlife Committee met in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday with FWP Director Christy Clark specifically asking the group to find a solution.
Clark’s request came on the heels of Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras explaining to an interim legislative committee last month why crossing from public land to public land where the corners meet is illegal.
Shortly thereafter, Montana conservation groups filed a lawsuit seeking to legalize corner crossing. Bills are also being written for the next legislative session that would address the issue.
Amid this turbulence, PL/PW was updated on FWP’s five existing access programs and discussed if tweaks could be made to apply them to a corner crossing situation. Unfortunately, many can’t be altered as they are outlined in state statute.
Lessee compensation
One of the issues that generated the most dispute was voiced by committee members who are landowners. They agreed that in a situation where a landowner allowed access at a corner to an adjacent piece of public property that a neighbor leased, that neighbor should be compensated.
Committee member Paul Ellis, of Bozeman, said without considering the adjacent lessee, the situation could open a rift between neighbors. Lee Cornwell, of Glasgow, agreed, saying it would be a way for neighbors to “stick their thumb in the other guy's eye.”
Dave McNaney, a Hysham rancher, accused some of the committee members of not understanding landowner relationships when he said allowing access to leased lands where he had yearling cattle would be a problem.
“Sure, the public being on public land that a rancher is used to treating as their own is probably an inconvenience, but is that a legitimate reason to prevent access to public lands?” questioned Kevin Farron, of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
PL/PW member Stephanie Prater, of Lewistown, said compensating a lessee makes no sense since they aren’t paid in other situations, like when she accesses public lands along a county road.
Dale Tribby, a committee member from Miles City, called the idea of paying an adjacent lessee “absolutely ludicrous." He also worried it could lead to other landowners seeking compensation for public land use.
“I think we're giving too much power to somebody who just has a lease,” agreed Drew Steinberger, a Billings committee member.
Quentin Kujala, FWP chief of staff, said his agency would shy away from authorizing a corner crossing where an adjacent lessee opposed public access to the public land.
“I don't think that really serves the idea of a pilot (project) well,” he said.
So FWP will seek out a landowner that has the lease on adjoining lands for its demonstration project.
Access overload
As the group looked at possibly using an existing program for corner crossing access it was once again reminded that FWP’s access program is understaffed and overwhelmed.
FWP administrator Renee Lemon said although the workers are attempting to work with everyone, the crew could use help.
“So if we're looking at opportunities to add additional agreements, we definitely need to be thinking about capacity, that's where you guys need more help,” she said.
Jason Kool, FWP landowner and sportsmen coordinator, agreed, saying his crews are spread thin meaning they can’t dedicate as much time to relationships as he’d like to see.
Department officials have previously voiced concern about decreasing revenues, so where the money would come from to hire additional staff seems uncertain.
Possible funding source?
One possibility, cited by Montana Wildlife Federation’s Farron in his comment to the committee, is a fund generated by the sale of state lands.
“This is a situation where funds generated from selling inaccessible state lands are supposed to be used to purchase new accessible state lands,” Farron said. “Unfortunately, not a penny, at least what we've been told, not a penny of this has been spent on new state land purchases since 2018. Forty one to $43 million is sitting in that account right now, we've been told. If this money doesn't get spent in 10 years, it gets diverted.”
A request to DNRC for confirmation of the amounts and expenditures was not received by press time.
Farron and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers also offered volunteers to help FWP with any manpower the agency might need in implementing a corner crossing program.
Concerns by landowners
On the other side of the issue, Raylee Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association said she’s worried the corner crossing debate may upset the “delicate balance” between public access and respecting private property rights that her group has worked to achieve.
“I think it's important to note that as there continues to be this public push for access, and we continue to see poor behavior with people utilizing these programs, there are consequences,” she warned, noting that some landowners have already told her group they plan to drop out of FWP access programs.
Honeycutt praised PL/PW for earlier celebrating the success of Montana’s public access programs, which committee chair Ed Beall of Helena hailed as the best in the nation.
Beall also stressed the need for continued cooperation and goodwill between sportspeople and landowners as foundational to PL/PW’s work.
Yet Anaconda hunter Kim Williams argued the state favors landowners and outfitters over the public when it comes to access. Although praising existing access programs, she added that FWP is reliant on the continued participation of landowners whereas access to public lands should be “enshrined in our law.”
billingsgazette.com
We live in strange times. Paying for access to federal land that has been deemed legal access in a different court. I worry about when the political pendulum swings. Could get ugly.
Brett French 52 mins ago
Montana's millions of acres of private land offer some excellent hunting opportunities—the only catch is gaining the landowner's permission to hunt.
After two days of discussion, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks has been asked to seek a willing landowner to allow corner crossing to test drive a possible solution to what has become a hot-button issue.
The 13-member Private Lands/Public Wildlife Committee met in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday with FWP Director Christy Clark specifically asking the group to find a solution.
Clark’s request came on the heels of Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras explaining to an interim legislative committee last month why crossing from public land to public land where the corners meet is illegal.
Shortly thereafter, Montana conservation groups filed a lawsuit seeking to legalize corner crossing. Bills are also being written for the next legislative session that would address the issue.
Amid this turbulence, PL/PW was updated on FWP’s five existing access programs and discussed if tweaks could be made to apply them to a corner crossing situation. Unfortunately, many can’t be altered as they are outlined in state statute.
Lessee compensation
One of the issues that generated the most dispute was voiced by committee members who are landowners. They agreed that in a situation where a landowner allowed access at a corner to an adjacent piece of public property that a neighbor leased, that neighbor should be compensated.
Committee member Paul Ellis, of Bozeman, said without considering the adjacent lessee, the situation could open a rift between neighbors. Lee Cornwell, of Glasgow, agreed, saying it would be a way for neighbors to “stick their thumb in the other guy's eye.”
Dave McNaney, a Hysham rancher, accused some of the committee members of not understanding landowner relationships when he said allowing access to leased lands where he had yearling cattle would be a problem.
“Sure, the public being on public land that a rancher is used to treating as their own is probably an inconvenience, but is that a legitimate reason to prevent access to public lands?” questioned Kevin Farron, of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
PL/PW member Stephanie Prater, of Lewistown, said compensating a lessee makes no sense since they aren’t paid in other situations, like when she accesses public lands along a county road.
Dale Tribby, a committee member from Miles City, called the idea of paying an adjacent lessee “absolutely ludicrous." He also worried it could lead to other landowners seeking compensation for public land use.
“I think we're giving too much power to somebody who just has a lease,” agreed Drew Steinberger, a Billings committee member.
Quentin Kujala, FWP chief of staff, said his agency would shy away from authorizing a corner crossing where an adjacent lessee opposed public access to the public land.
“I don't think that really serves the idea of a pilot (project) well,” he said.
So FWP will seek out a landowner that has the lease on adjoining lands for its demonstration project.
Access overload
As the group looked at possibly using an existing program for corner crossing access it was once again reminded that FWP’s access program is understaffed and overwhelmed.
FWP administrator Renee Lemon said although the workers are attempting to work with everyone, the crew could use help.
“So if we're looking at opportunities to add additional agreements, we definitely need to be thinking about capacity, that's where you guys need more help,” she said.
Jason Kool, FWP landowner and sportsmen coordinator, agreed, saying his crews are spread thin meaning they can’t dedicate as much time to relationships as he’d like to see.
Department officials have previously voiced concern about decreasing revenues, so where the money would come from to hire additional staff seems uncertain.
Possible funding source?
One possibility, cited by Montana Wildlife Federation’s Farron in his comment to the committee, is a fund generated by the sale of state lands.
“This is a situation where funds generated from selling inaccessible state lands are supposed to be used to purchase new accessible state lands,” Farron said. “Unfortunately, not a penny, at least what we've been told, not a penny of this has been spent on new state land purchases since 2018. Forty one to $43 million is sitting in that account right now, we've been told. If this money doesn't get spent in 10 years, it gets diverted.”
A request to DNRC for confirmation of the amounts and expenditures was not received by press time.
Farron and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers also offered volunteers to help FWP with any manpower the agency might need in implementing a corner crossing program.
Concerns by landowners
On the other side of the issue, Raylee Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association said she’s worried the corner crossing debate may upset the “delicate balance” between public access and respecting private property rights that her group has worked to achieve.
“I think it's important to note that as there continues to be this public push for access, and we continue to see poor behavior with people utilizing these programs, there are consequences,” she warned, noting that some landowners have already told her group they plan to drop out of FWP access programs.
Honeycutt praised PL/PW for earlier celebrating the success of Montana’s public access programs, which committee chair Ed Beall of Helena hailed as the best in the nation.
Beall also stressed the need for continued cooperation and goodwill between sportspeople and landowners as foundational to PL/PW’s work.
Yet Anaconda hunter Kim Williams argued the state favors landowners and outfitters over the public when it comes to access. Although praising existing access programs, she added that FWP is reliant on the continued participation of landowners whereas access to public lands should be “enshrined in our law.”
FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
One issue that generated dispute was over whether an adjacent public land lessee should be compensated when a neighbor allows corner crossing onto the property.
We live in strange times. Paying for access to federal land that has been deemed legal access in a different court. I worry about when the political pendulum swings. Could get ugly.
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,023
This whole situation has "reality show" vibes.FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
Brett French 52 mins ago
Montana's millions of acres of private land offer some excellent hunting opportunities—the only catch is gaining the landowner's permission to hunt.
After two days of discussion, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks has been asked to seek a willing landowner to allow corner crossing to test drive a possible solution to what has become a hot-button issue.
The 13-member Private Lands/Public Wildlife Committee met in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday with FWP Director Christy Clark specifically asking the group to find a solution.
Clark’s request came on the heels of Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras explaining to an interim legislative committee last month why crossing from public land to public land where the corners meet is illegal.
Shortly thereafter, Montana conservation groups filed a lawsuit seeking to legalize corner crossing. Bills are also being written for the next legislative session that would address the issue.
Amid this turbulence, PL/PW was updated on FWP’s five existing access programs and discussed if tweaks could be made to apply them to a corner crossing situation. Unfortunately, many can’t be altered as they are outlined in state statute.
Lessee compensation
One of the issues that generated the most dispute was voiced by committee members who are landowners. They agreed that in a situation where a landowner allowed access at a corner to an adjacent piece of public property that a neighbor leased, that neighbor should be compensated.
Committee member Paul Ellis, of Bozeman, said without considering the adjacent lessee, the situation could open a rift between neighbors. Lee Cornwell, of Glasgow, agreed, saying it would be a way for neighbors to “stick their thumb in the other guy's eye.”
Dave McNaney, a Hysham rancher, accused some of the committee members of not understanding landowner relationships when he said allowing access to leased lands where he had yearling cattle would be a problem.
“Sure, the public being on public land that a rancher is used to treating as their own is probably an inconvenience, but is that a legitimate reason to prevent access to public lands?” questioned Kevin Farron, of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
PL/PW member Stephanie Prater, of Lewistown, said compensating a lessee makes no sense since they aren’t paid in other situations, like when she accesses public lands along a county road.
Dale Tribby, a committee member from Miles City, called the idea of paying an adjacent lessee “absolutely ludicrous." He also worried it could lead to other landowners seeking compensation for public land use.
“I think we're giving too much power to somebody who just has a lease,” agreed Drew Steinberger, a Billings committee member.
Quentin Kujala, FWP chief of staff, said his agency would shy away from authorizing a corner crossing where an adjacent lessee opposed public access to the public land.
“I don't think that really serves the idea of a pilot (project) well,” he said.
So FWP will seek out a landowner that has the lease on adjoining lands for its demonstration project.
Access overload
As the group looked at possibly using an existing program for corner crossing access it was once again reminded that FWP’s access program is understaffed and overwhelmed.
FWP administrator Renee Lemon said although the workers are attempting to work with everyone, the crew could use help.
“So if we're looking at opportunities to add additional agreements, we definitely need to be thinking about capacity, that's where you guys need more help,” she said.
Jason Kool, FWP landowner and sportsmen coordinator, agreed, saying his crews are spread thin meaning they can’t dedicate as much time to relationships as he’d like to see.
Department officials have previously voiced concern about decreasing revenues, so where the money would come from to hire additional staff seems uncertain.
Possible funding source?
One possibility, cited by Montana Wildlife Federation’s Farron in his comment to the committee, is a fund generated by the sale of state lands.
“This is a situation where funds generated from selling inaccessible state lands are supposed to be used to purchase new accessible state lands,” Farron said. “Unfortunately, not a penny, at least what we've been told, not a penny of this has been spent on new state land purchases since 2018. Forty one to $43 million is sitting in that account right now, we've been told. If this money doesn't get spent in 10 years, it gets diverted.”
A request to DNRC for confirmation of the amounts and expenditures was not received by press time.
Farron and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers also offered volunteers to help FWP with any manpower the agency might need in implementing a corner crossing program.
Concerns by landowners
On the other side of the issue, Raylee Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association said she’s worried the corner crossing debate may upset the “delicate balance” between public access and respecting private property rights that her group has worked to achieve.
“I think it's important to note that as there continues to be this public push for access, and we continue to see poor behavior with people utilizing these programs, there are consequences,” she warned, noting that some landowners have already told her group they plan to drop out of FWP access programs.
Honeycutt praised PL/PW for earlier celebrating the success of Montana’s public access programs, which committee chair Ed Beall of Helena hailed as the best in the nation.
Beall also stressed the need for continued cooperation and goodwill between sportspeople and landowners as foundational to PL/PW’s work.
Yet Anaconda hunter Kim Williams argued the state favors landowners and outfitters over the public when it comes to access. Although praising existing access programs, she added that FWP is reliant on the continued participation of landowners whereas access to public lands should be “enshrined in our law.”
FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
One issue that generated dispute was over whether an adjacent public land lessee should be compensated when a neighbor allows corner crossing onto the property.
We live in strange times. Paying for access to federal land that has been deemed legal access in a different court. I worry about when the political pendulum swings. Could get ugly.
It’s mind blowing that they took this on. The correct stance was you could get prosecuted by the county attorney and the game warden could write you a ticket at his discretion. That’s good enough for me now I kind of want to do it. They created a hornets nest that was not there. Certainly not a good look for landowners either that pay little to nothing for their federal grazing (which I am fine with but I certainly might be the minority).
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,798
Romanticizing people and thinking theyre always thinking for public interest will do that. I guess.
WTF. This now seems like they’re looking down the barrel of a gun.FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
Brett French 52 mins ago
Montana's millions of acres of private land offer some excellent hunting opportunities—the only catch is gaining the landowner's permission to hunt.
After two days of discussion, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks has been asked to seek a willing landowner to allow corner crossing to test drive a possible solution to what has become a hot-button issue.
The 13-member Private Lands/Public Wildlife Committee met in Glasgow on Monday and Tuesday with FWP Director Christy Clark specifically asking the group to find a solution.
Clark’s request came on the heels of Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras explaining to an interim legislative committee last month why crossing from public land to public land where the corners meet is illegal.
Shortly thereafter, Montana conservation groups filed a lawsuit seeking to legalize corner crossing. Bills are also being written for the next legislative session that would address the issue.
Amid this turbulence, PL/PW was updated on FWP’s five existing access programs and discussed if tweaks could be made to apply them to a corner crossing situation. Unfortunately, many can’t be altered as they are outlined in state statute.
Lessee compensation
One of the issues that generated the most dispute was voiced by committee members who are landowners. They agreed that in a situation where a landowner allowed access at a corner to an adjacent piece of public property that a neighbor leased, that neighbor should be compensated.
Committee member Paul Ellis, of Bozeman, said without considering the adjacent lessee, the situation could open a rift between neighbors. Lee Cornwell, of Glasgow, agreed, saying it would be a way for neighbors to “stick their thumb in the other guy's eye.”
Dave McNaney, a Hysham rancher, accused some of the committee members of not understanding landowner relationships when he said allowing access to leased lands where he had yearling cattle would be a problem.
“Sure, the public being on public land that a rancher is used to treating as their own is probably an inconvenience, but is that a legitimate reason to prevent access to public lands?” questioned Kevin Farron, of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
PL/PW member Stephanie Prater, of Lewistown, said compensating a lessee makes no sense since they aren’t paid in other situations, like when she accesses public lands along a county road.
Dale Tribby, a committee member from Miles City, called the idea of paying an adjacent lessee “absolutely ludicrous." He also worried it could lead to other landowners seeking compensation for public land use.
“I think we're giving too much power to somebody who just has a lease,” agreed Drew Steinberger, a Billings committee member.
Quentin Kujala, FWP chief of staff, said his agency would shy away from authorizing a corner crossing where an adjacent lessee opposed public access to the public land.
“I don't think that really serves the idea of a pilot (project) well,” he said.
So FWP will seek out a landowner that has the lease on adjoining lands for its demonstration project.
Access overload
As the group looked at possibly using an existing program for corner crossing access it was once again reminded that FWP’s access program is understaffed and overwhelmed.
FWP administrator Renee Lemon said although the workers are attempting to work with everyone, the crew could use help.
“So if we're looking at opportunities to add additional agreements, we definitely need to be thinking about capacity, that's where you guys need more help,” she said.
Jason Kool, FWP landowner and sportsmen coordinator, agreed, saying his crews are spread thin meaning they can’t dedicate as much time to relationships as he’d like to see.
Department officials have previously voiced concern about decreasing revenues, so where the money would come from to hire additional staff seems uncertain.
Possible funding source?
One possibility, cited by Montana Wildlife Federation’s Farron in his comment to the committee, is a fund generated by the sale of state lands.
“This is a situation where funds generated from selling inaccessible state lands are supposed to be used to purchase new accessible state lands,” Farron said. “Unfortunately, not a penny, at least what we've been told, not a penny of this has been spent on new state land purchases since 2018. Forty one to $43 million is sitting in that account right now, we've been told. If this money doesn't get spent in 10 years, it gets diverted.”
A request to DNRC for confirmation of the amounts and expenditures was not received by press time.
Farron and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers also offered volunteers to help FWP with any manpower the agency might need in implementing a corner crossing program.
Concerns by landowners
On the other side of the issue, Raylee Honeycutt of the Montana Stockgrowers Association said she’s worried the corner crossing debate may upset the “delicate balance” between public access and respecting private property rights that her group has worked to achieve.
“I think it's important to note that as there continues to be this public push for access, and we continue to see poor behavior with people utilizing these programs, there are consequences,” she warned, noting that some landowners have already told her group they plan to drop out of FWP access programs.
Honeycutt praised PL/PW for earlier celebrating the success of Montana’s public access programs, which committee chair Ed Beall of Helena hailed as the best in the nation.
Beall also stressed the need for continued cooperation and goodwill between sportspeople and landowners as foundational to PL/PW’s work.
Yet Anaconda hunter Kim Williams argued the state favors landowners and outfitters over the public when it comes to access. Although praising existing access programs, she added that FWP is reliant on the continued participation of landowners whereas access to public lands should be “enshrined in our law.”
FWP to seek landowner to pilot Montana corner crossing program
One issue that generated dispute was over whether an adjacent public land lessee should be compensated when a neighbor allows corner crossing onto the property.
We live in strange times. Paying for access to federal land that has been deemed legal access in a different court. I worry about when the political pendulum swings. Could get ugly.
MTFWPACO?
Similar threads
