Corner Crossing (is any hunter against it?)

[Trial153]

Its basically there land, they can't farm it but as long as they keep withing the grazing regulations they can run cattle, hunt it and recreate on the land within the law.

This is my biggest grip, if the public can't access the land then it should be off limits to the surrounding land owner, we're paying for the management of the land so the local property land owner can add to there acreage. Then if the local game and fish department can get some kind of access worked out for the public land we end up paying the landowner something for the access to public land that there using as there own. There's millions of acres of landlocked public land in the West being used by ranchers for there own gain while locking out the public paying for the land and all the while these farmers and ranchers have there hand in every government program made to subsidize them. Its one big welfare system with the working class people footing the bill.

Lots of truth there^ best post of the thread. What we have is de facto private ownership paid for by the public.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[bigdesert10]

There are so many mistruths and falacies in this post I don’t know where to begin.

First of all, landlocked land is “mostly” leased to adjoining landowners for whatever commercial enterprise it will afford at an established fair market value or in a lot of cases, to the highest bidder. Some goes unleased but, if utilized by for commercial gain that entity can be prosecuted.

Second, as it pertains to outfitters, the land must be leased from the state or other govt entity by the outfitter to operate on or in some cases to operate even “near”. The land receives just compensation for private use in most cases.

Third, this land costs not one single dollar out of your pocket. It has been paid in full for several hundred years and there are no operating costs to bear.
Fourth, I don’t have an opinion on corner-hopping but, until the law changes, we must follow the law. As a side note, it is very depressing to see the consistent negative connotation private landowners receive on this site.
Land ownership is the American dream for most individuals. Why poop on the landowner and their rights? As a whole, they are personally contributing to government coffers much more than the individual who doesn’t own an acre.
Lastly, and more importantly, farmers and ranchers are not a welfare state. A better description would be “National Security” maybe even a national treasure. If you take away affordable commercial food production in this country you will see the meaning of welfare from one coast to to the other. History has repeatedly proven this maxim to be fact! History has also proven that food production in the hands of the government is not sustainable and inevitably results in a dictatorship! Many examples of this...
So before you rant incoherently and inconsistently, you might think about what you are saying. Be careful what you wish for!!!

At least in Idaho, exclusive-use leases are rare. A grazing permit does not afford one exclusive access to the land in question, unless explicitly stated in the agreement. Those are pretty rare, in my experience.

Outfitters also do not get exclusive use of their operating areas.

Grazing fees on federal land are a pittance compared to private land costs. When wildfires break out, that's on John Q. Public's dime.

Nobody here is poo-pooing land owners (I'm a landowner)- just d-bags that want to treat large tracts of public land as their own without having to pay for it, while simultaneously blocking everyone else out. I'm all for public land grazing. I'm not ok with ranchers treating honest decent hunters like second-rate citizens and barring them from rightfully accessible lands via shady and deceitful tactics.

I don't really get why you're trying to turn this discussion into an argument about the value of farming and ranching. Everybody here values honest farmers and ranchers. Nobody is promoting socialized food production. Get a grip, man.

 

[100percent]

I

Your post isn't factual at all, where to begin.

Federal Public lands are NOT leased at fair market value, but rather based on an out of date Act of Congress and executive order:


The formula used for calculating the grazing fee was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act and has remained in use under a 1986 presidential Executive Order. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM/HM, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. The annually determined grazing fee is established using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM/HM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states.

You're also wrong that Federal Land doesn't cost the American Tax Payer...it 100% absolutely does. Administrating public land grazing, mineral development, wind/solar development all cost the tax payer. There's also PILT that is paid to the counties based on the amount of federal land found in each county, that comes from the taxpayer as well. Of course lets not also forget about firefighting costs, weed spraying, government subsidized predator control, and all the other administrative things that the taxpayer pays for.

Federal leases never go to the "highest bidder", I cant out-bid a current lease holder even if I wanted to pay 2-3 times more for the right to lease it. Most every State has lease agreements that allow the current lease holder to match anyone that may outbid them. Its a rigged game that favors private land owners hugely.

You're also wrong about State leases as well, many are more an AUM than Federal, but still not based on fair market value.

As to outfitters...I don't know if a maximum of a few hundred dollars to operate a year on State and Federal land is "fair and just" compensation. I don't believe so, but that's just my opinion. I know in WY, on State ground outfitters pay 10 cents an acre to lease for hunting with a Statutory maximum they have to pay per year, no matter how many clients they take or how much state land they operate on.

Also, ever taken a look at the farm subsidy data base? The public is paying out the ass for the poor farmers. In your home State of Mississippi, between 1995-2017 your farmers have received 9.52 billion in subsidies. I often wonder if they're better at farming the land or "farming" the Government?

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

farm.ewg.org

All that to the point that muddydogs has a valid point and his post is more factual than your rant. I also don't believe that allowing corner crossing is a violation of any property right, and I do it when the need arises.

I defend the truth of my post and statements as they are written and will not stand corrected much of anything you contributed to this. Some of my statements are indeed generalizations and may not be exact or apparent in every situation but most....You are using the same semantics as reference to defend your position as it concerns the leases. Most lease values are determined by fair market value. There are some incidents that don’t add up but, that is the exception not the rule. It may not be the value that you or the average joe puts on it but, it is a value determined by those who are fortunate enough to have invested (or inherited) enough stock and equipment that would justify this value. You can’t hold the adjoining landowner in contempt for strictly following a policy created by our legislators years ago or days ago if they are compliant. Your contrarian view of the details of such are your own folly and will not affect my position or diminish the integrity of my post. EWG is clearly a partisan watchdog organization that spreads distrust through the abstract with no mention or credence given to results associated with government payments and the good they do for the American public.
Capitalism is a wonderful thing!

 

[BuzzH]

I defend the t

I defend the truth of my post and statements as they are written and will not stand corrected much of anything you contributed to this. Some of my statements are indeed generalizations and may not be exact or apparent in every situation but most....You are using the same semantics as reference to defend your position as it concerns the leases. Most lease values are determined by fair market value. There are some incidents that don’t add up but, that is the exception not the rule. It may not be the value that you or the average joe puts on it but, it is a value determined by those who are fortunate enough to have invested (or inherited) enough stock and equipment that would justify this value. You can’t hold the adjoining landowner in contempt for strictly following a policy created by our legislators years ago or days ago if they are compliant. Your contrarian view of the details of such are your own folly and will not affect my position or diminish the integrity of my post. EWG is clearly a partisan watchdog organization that spreads distrust through the abstract with no mention or credence given to results associated with government payments and the good they do for the American public.
Capitalism is a wonderful thing!

Your "make believe" facts, make them as big as you want. Been doing this stuff for a long time and facts trump your opinion and "integrity".

You've been lead to water.

Carry on.

 

[100percent]

At least in Idaho, exclusive-use leases are rare. A grazing permit does not afford one exclusive access to the land in question, unless explicitly stated in the agreement. Those are pretty rare, in my experience.

Outfitters also do not get exclusive use of their operating areas.

Grazing fees on federal land are a pittance compared to private land costs. When wildfires break out, that's on John Q. Public's dime.

Nobody here is poo-pooing land owners (I'm a landowner)- just d-bags that want to treat large tracts of public land as their own without having to pay for it, while simultaneously blocking everyone else out. I'm all for public land grazing. I'm not ok with ranchers treating honest decent hunters like second-rate citizens and barring them from rightfully accessible lands via shady and deceitful tactics.

I don't really get why you're trying to turn this discussion into an argument about the value of farming and ranching. Everybody here values honest farmers and ranchers. Nobody is promoting socialized food production. Get a grip, man.

Not everybody. Read the post I responded to. It’s a recurring theme on here by a few that private/ranchers/farmers are to be scorned for govt payments and welfare recipients. Ridiculous!! I have a grip! A firm grip on what this kind of ignorance does to public sentiment.

 

[Broomd]

A guy was walking his dog by my house yesterday. His dog took a dump on my grass. He had the audacity to place one foot on my grass to pick up dog crap. Didn’t even have the common courtesy to trespass up my walkway, knock on my door, then ask permission to pick up dog crap.
Uncivilized world we live in.

I'm still searching for the relevancy there....

People want trespass access and 'corner hopping' rights until they actually own property they value. Then their attitude changes and they want what they worked so hard to acquire protected.

 

[timberland]

Coner crossing always leads to futher tresspassing.

I would say there is a chance for corner crossing to lead into other abuse that the landowner shouldn't have to deal with.

 

[Floorguy]

If a corner was crossed and there is no Aggrieved Party, the idea that it’s crime is ridiculous.

Does that logic follow for other crimes as well? As long as the "victim" doesn't know it's not a crime?

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

 

[FlyGuy]

It would be nice for a corner hopping case to make it to the supreme court. I heard on a podcast that ideally, it should be for someone other than hunters (due to having the hunting stigma clouding the actual issue). Maybe a couple of boy scouts heading into the woods for a scout trip, or middle age females going birdwatching. I bet that would play out favorably and get corner hopping legalized by case law.

I posted something like this in a similar thread last year, still think this is something BHA should champion.

(I’m not an attorney, so keep in mind I could be dead wrong about this, but here is my .02)

It’s my understanding that the prosicutability of corner crossing is somewhat in the grey area, and therefore relies on precedent and is pretty much managed at the state level based on the precedent of said state. What I think we need to do is set a very, very public precedent.


Get about 1000 volunteers - or even a heck of a lot more of this was staged to happen on the same day across multiple states - to line up single file and corner-cross. Have the media on-hand to film it. I mean, make it a freaking Carnival. Have booths out there from all the major hunting brands just like a big total-archery challenge event. Sell hot dogs and cokes. I big day of people enjoying their public land.

And make sure to Invite the sherif out. I doubt the sherif would arrest most of their constituents over this. Lots of footage of deputies not doing anything except making sure the crowd stays under control. If they do arrest everyone, then it’s a great opportunity to take the case up to the Supreme Court, but we would need to support of BHA or some other organization to fund the legal defense. If they don’t arrest everyone, then we’ve established some precedent of this being a non-prosecutable offense, and no DA is going to take the case.

I’d be willing to line up and cross.









You can’t cheat the mountain

 

[Rich M]

As a former land owner, I had lots of issues with hunters, enough that I ultimately sold the land rather than continue to deal with those who were willfully breaking the law. They lived next to the local LEO, probably relatives. Anyway, he could never catch em - go figure.

So far - corner crossing is illegal. If you willfully break the law, you should be fined and have your license revoked. So, yeah, I support following the rules & laws.

If you think that cause no-one knows it isn't bad or wrong. You just failed the basic test for morality - what you do when no-one is looking.

Someone mentioned "podcast" - is this some other thing where the podcast "expert" leads his sheep to get up in arms and all excited over the law of the land. If it is - follow someone a little less inflammatory and you won't feel like you've been robbed of land you "should have access to". The rules have been like this for a long, long time. It is nothing new.

You could always form a group and dedicate your life to trying to get the laws changed. Might be a fun way to meet like-minded folks who actually care about doing something other than internet debates.

 

[Floorguy]

If I am a landowner and corner crossing is legal, what protections do I have from the liability of a person getting hurt on my property?

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Schaaf]

If I am a landowner and corner crossing is legal, what protections do I have from the liability of a person getting hurt on my property?

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

My dude. The person isn’t on your land.

 

[bowtech3dhunter]

I’m ignorant to this, but what rights does a rancher have to the BLM land sections within his property? Can he farm, keep cattle on, cut hay on it?

They have no more right then you or I. That piece will be fenced in so he can’t go in there and hay it. If he doesn’t have a grazing permit, then he can’t graze it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Dill]

My solution:

Pass a law making it legal to corner-cross.
Stipulate a 5' wide maximum easement from public to public land.
Compensate the landowner annually via a property tax credit or rebate.
Stipulate absolutely no motorized vehicles or livestock through the access, unless the landowner allows for it.
Landowner is responsible to post and identify 5' easement location.
Corner crossing is not permitted within X # of feet of an occupied permanent structure.

I'm a longtime landowner and I've seen way too much 'assumption' by overzealous hunters. A few screw it up for many, but that's true of most things in life. Unfortunately the many give up a lot of pleasure and opportunities because of it. Keep in mind that a corner crossing is a bottleneck which will focus human traffic through a tight corridor. Hunters of all types.....good and bad....will be using it.

 

[street]

Technically speaking, a corner of property boundaries is a point in 2D space defined by the topography of the ground. And land ownership, pretty sure, would be defined by owning the ground within the boarder and anything on it. Therefore, corner crossing is not trespassing, assuming you can pick your feet up when you walk...

 

[Billinsd]

I am a land owner and also the owner of a semi rural single family home on a residential lot. Should someone be aloud to corner hop my residential property as well?

So long as they don't go wandering off on your private land, why on earth not? Unless you are trying to restrict people from accessing public land (which I don't believe) or want to prevent people from possibly wandering around on your land. Bill

 

[ramont]

All of you people that support corner crossing seem to forget that in some cases in order to reach that corner you have to tresspass on somebody's private property. If you are traveling through public land in order to access a corner crossing then I have no problem with your actions, as long as you don't have to tresspass in order to get over any fences. The vast majority of land owners agree that it's wrong to interfere with access to public lands but the truth is that some people that think that they have a right to corner cross will tresspass in order to reach that corner. They aren't floating over the ground, they are driving, riding, or walking on private property at some point in order to get to the corner. It is absolutely impossible to walk on a real world land boundary that is drawn on a map without actually touching private property.

I own a small parcel of land next to Helena National Forest (where I have a permenant residence) and I've had several people over the years attempt to drive up my POSTED, PRIVATE driveway and along my property line, which requires that they drive off of my driveway and over a small pasture area in order to reach the property boundary that is adjacent to another private parcel in order to access public land that lies on my property's back edge - even though there are public Forest Service roads leading to the very same area no more than 3 miles away. This is the reality of what corner crossing is, it's tresspassing on private land.

Yes, allowing people to tresspass on my property will result in even more tresspassing. Under our corrupted legal system if I allow even one person to cross regularly then I've set a precedent of allowing public acces to my private property which could be contrued to mean that I gave up control of my private land to the public. I can easily be sued for trying stop people from tresspassing using any number of legal tactics. If a person feels that it's legal to cross my private property on one boundry then it's a sure thing that sombody will assume that they can cross at any other point along my property boundries and I wont be able to stop them since traditioinally I've allowed access through my private lands. In essence, I've given up my private property rights and made my land public land.

 

[204guy]

All of you people that support corner crossing seem to forget that in some cases in order to reach that corner you have to tresspass on somebody's private property.

Literally no one is forgetting that. That's not "corner crossing" in the context being discussed here. Public to public. That's just plain old trespassing.

 

[Bigjay73]

As a former land owner, I had lots of issues with hunters, enough that I ultimately sold the land rather than continue to deal with those who were willfully breaking the law. They lived next to the local LEO, probably relatives. Anyway, he could never catch em - go figure.

So far - corner crossing is illegal. If you willfully break the law, you should be fined and have your license revoked. So, yeah, I support following the rules & laws.

If you think that cause no-one knows it isn't bad or wrong. You just failed the basic test for morality - what you do when no-one is looking.

Someone mentioned "podcast" - is this some other thing where the podcast "expert" leads his sheep to get up in arms and all excited over the law of the land. If it is - follow someone a little less inflammatory and you won't feel like you've been robbed of land you "should have access to". The rules have been like this for a long, long time. It is nothing new.

You could always form a group and dedicate your life to trying to get the laws changed. Might be a fun way to meet like-minded folks who actually care about doing something other than internet debates.

What morality is involved? We're talking about stepping from public, to public without setting foot on private. Are you saying that you own the space from the ground to the edge of the atmosphere? Are we going to start fining airplanes that fly over private land?

 

[hflier]

That corner crap is theft of access. It allows land owners to double their holdings without spending the money. When you buy land you would not buy a checker board pattern for any other reason than this. It is B.S. and should be illegal.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk