Montana corner crossing lawsuit.

[cnelk]

Wasn’t the 9th court ruling for only to corner cross on Fed lands?

 

[jkoehle1]

Landowners in Montana need to find law enforcement willing to write you a ticket for corner crossing.
Their are none.

A memo published in january directed them to.

 

[MTBackroads]

A memo published in january directed them to.

Nobody wants to be the deputy that writes the ticket that goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[mtwarden]

This is the reason for the lawsuit. For decades we were instructed NOT to write any citations for corner crossing (legitimate corner crossing). Now: (I believe it came from the Governor’s office) the director (who is appointed by the Governor)

FWP Director Christy Clark issued a directive stating that corner crossing is unlawful in Montana. Wardens were instructed to issue citations for criminal trespass or hunting without landowner permission to anyone caught corner crossing without prior consent.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

This is the reason for the lawsuit. For decades we were instructed NOT to write any citations for corner crossing (legitimate corner crossing). Now: (I believe it came from the Governor’s office) the director (who is appointed by the Governor)

FWP Director Christy Clark issued a directive stating that corner crossing is unlawful in Montana. Wardens were instructed to issue citations for criminal trespass or hunting without landowner permission to anyone caught corner crossing without prior consent.

Would one have to be caught in the direct act of crossing the corner in order to be ticketed? In other words, if one was at their truck on public land with a legally tagged animal and a warden asked where they got it and they say on that piece of land locked. Well how did you access? No comment plead the fifth.

Ive just never heard of someone having to prove how they accessed public land. Just curious!

 

[mtwarden]

In Montana you can be requested to return to the kill site—refusing is a violation. It’s not done routinely, but is if something is hinky.

 

[MTBackroads]

This is the reason for the lawsuit. For decades we were instructed NOT to write any citations for corner crossing (legitimate corner crossing). Now: (I believe it came from the Governor’s office) the director (who is appointed by the Governor)

FWP Director Christy Clark issued a directive stating that corner crossing is unlawful in Montana. Wardens were instructed to issue citations for criminal trespass or hunting without landowner permission to anyone caught corner crossing without prior consent.

How many Sheriffs, deputies, or wardens are willing to write those tickets?

 

[mtwarden]

How many Sheriffs, deputies, or wardens are willing to write those tickets?

Well unfortunately if the Director says to write them, then the Chief directs the Captains ant the Captains will direct the wardens.

Like I said, this is brand new direction, for twenty years we were told the opposite.

Not sure how likely a Deputy would be, probably varies by county. I know a couple of counties in SE Montana where it wouldn’t be terribly surprising.

 

[CMF]

In Montana you can be requested to return to the kill site—refusing is a violation. It’s not done routinely, but is if something is hinky.

Would it not be enough to provide coordinates to the kill site?
I've read that requirement somewhere before and thought, what if you're physically exhausted from just having packed an animal out?

 

[MTBackroads]

Well unfortunately if the Director says to write them, then the Chief directs the Captains ant the Captains will direct the wardens.

Like I said, this is brand new direction, for twenty years we were told the opposite.

Not sure how likely a Deputy would be, probably varies by county. I know a couple of counties in SE Montana where it wouldn’t be terribly surprising.

Then the warden will have to write a ticket that causes the the case to go up the chain.

There isn't a Sheriff or deputy that will write it.

 

[jkoehle1]

For decades we were instructed NOT to write any citations for corner crossing (legitimate corner crossing). Now: (I believe it came from the Governor’s office) the director (who is appointed by the Governor)

Like I said, this is brand new direction, for twenty years we were told the opposite.

Please testify that when you can if the opportunity is available.

The smoke and mirrors bs from the gov office and the director is "its always been unlawful"

 

[Jpsmith1]

How many Sheriffs, deputies, or wardens are willing to write those tickets?

Based on this conversation, the ones that want to keep their jobs.

I mean, if the big bosses are pushing it, a landowner dropping the dime on a warden for NOT following that directive is going to be bad news.

 

[velvet muley]

Our rich land owners have Gianforte in his pocket, he campaigned on protecting our public lands but anyone with half a brain knows he is full of shit.

He will do everything in his power to derail us from getting more public land access so he can keep his donors happy.

 

[insanelupus]

The smoke and mirrors bs from the gov office and the director is "its always been unlawful"

To be clear on the facts, corner crossing in MT has always been unlawful, at least through this current century (and many years before I'm sure).

Just because it wasn't enforced doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful.



While I get the argument for corner crossing, and would love it to be a legal means of access, I can understand the position of private property owners too. While many "Sportsmen" are stand up folks (the majority of both the public as well as Rokslide, I believe) not all are. The concerns of property owners that corner crossing will present many new headaches for them are valid.

Look at our BMA program and the disregard and disrespect "Sportsmen" have for those property owners that give legal access to their private land. Folks don't follow the rules, leave trash behind, and occasionally tear up property. Even with compensation, no way I'd deal with those headaches.


If this argument on corner crossing was just about corner crossing, things would be easy.

But between the irresponsible "Sportsmen" who need to be held accountable, distrust on both sides of the argument, the "rights" of accessing public land many folks proclaim but will never touch in their lifetime even if they could, and outright jealousy from the have nots toward the haves, this turns into an emotionally flared mess.

Practically, that means in the end, there will be unhappiness on one side or the other of this issue. Maybe both.

I certainly hope I'm wrong.

 

[velvet muley]

To be clear on the facts, corner crossing in MT has always been unlawful, at least through this current century (and many years before I'm sure).

Just because it wasn't enforced doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful.



While I get the argument for corner crossing, and would love it to be a legal means of access, I can understand the position of private property owners too. While many "Sportsmen" are stand up folks (the majority of both the public as well as Rokslide, I believe) not all are. The concerns of property owners that corner crossing will present many new headaches for them are valid.

Look at our BMA program and the disregard and disrespect "Sportsmen" have for those property owners that give legal access to their private land. Folks don't follow the rules, leave trash behind, and occasionally tear up property. Even with compensation, no way I'd deal with those headaches.


If this argument on corner crossing was just about corner crossing, things would be easy.

But between the irresponsible "Sportsmen" who need to be held accountable, distrust on both sides of the argument, the "rights" of accessing public land many folks proclaim but will never touch in their lifetime even if they could, and outright jealousy from the have nots toward the haves, this turns into an emotionally flared mess.

Practically, that means in the end, there will be unhappiness on one side or the other of this issue. Maybe both.

I certainly hope I'm wrong.

You say the fact is that it has always been unlawful, I'm yet to see a law that says so. That was also the case in Wyoming and that's why they won. I would say it has always been unlawful to keep people from doing so through intimidation according the the unlawful enclosures act of 1885.

 

[insanelupus]

You say the fact is that it has always been unlawful, I'm yet to see a law that says so. That was also the case in Wyoming and that's why they won. I would say it has always been unlawful to keep people from doing so through intimidation according the the unlawful enclosures act of 1885.

My current understanding, and if I'm wrong, please correct me @mtwarden, is that corner crossing was viewed as illegal based upon the case law that came out of United States v. Causby (1946). Causby won that case (5-2). The precedent set by case law was that the property owner owned the "immediate reaches" of the airspace above their land.

The Court also, however, rejected the idea of absolute airspace ownership (applicable with regards to air traffic, etc.).

While no state statute exists I'm aware of, that case does seem applicable. While the case law wasn't cited by name (yes, I did need to look it up) the premise of the idea was explained much the same way as above when I inquired of it decades ago moving to MT.

I could absolutely be wrong and if I am, please ensure I'm corrected. But to the best of my knowledge, that is often where this issue hinges. The decision in WY surprised me and while I'm thrilled for those in that jurisdiction, I'm doubtful SCOTUS would reject US v. Causby, though they might refine/re-define it somehow. However, in doing so it would likely further complicate the issue legally (and in future cases) and as a layman, I suspect they would simply rule with US v. Causby in mind and rule against corner crossing. That would provide the cleanest legal ruling.

I'm all for corner crossing, but if it ever rises to SCOTUS and they hear it, I doubt it would become legal.

But then, at one point in life I used giant pencils, tried Elmer's glue to see what it tasted like, and couldn't color in the lines, so keep that in mind.

Like I said, I could be wrong.

 

[406RoadToad]

If you can’t make the meeting at 9am on Monday I encourage you to send an email voicing your concern for the proposed land swap rule change. The map of what it would open to potential sale was truly shocking…

Link to BHA’s take action page and drafted email for this subject:

Take Action: Oppose State Land Exchange Policy Shift

At 9 am on Monday, May 18 in Helena, the Montana Board of Land Commissioners will consider sweeping revisions to the State's Land Exchange Policy that could significantly impact public land access, checkerboarded lands, access to navigable waters , and the future management of Montana's state...

takeaction.io

 

[One300wsm]

You say the fact is that it has always been unlawful, I'm yet to see a law that says so. That was also the case in Wyoming and that's why they won. I would say it has always been unlawful to keep people from doing so through intimidation according the the unlawful enclosures act of 1885.

If your beliefs are it’s lawful what’s stopping you? Seems like most everyone is waiting on someone else to take the chance and foot the bill over the last 140 years. Enough people just do it and stead of talking about it, just maybe everyone could get some clarification from the court system.
The hunters that aren’t talking about it are the ones that have been hunting it alone.
As I stated earlier regardless of the out come, you better be prepared for Confrontation it will happen.
The funny part is once all the bystanders waiting on clarification it’s legal and grab their ladders. That block of BLM will be just like any other Public land all the wildlife will be pushed to private.
Link below will put you there legally with less confrontation, on most Montana public locked lands.

Helicopter Hunting | Sportsman Recreation | Central Copters

When designing your next adventure, whether it be hunting, hiking, fishing, or backpacking, contact our knowledgeable staff to assist you.

centralcopters.com

 

[bluetick78]

If you can’t make the meeting at 9am on Monday I encourage you to send an email voicing your concern for the proposed land swap rule change. The map of what it would open to potential sale was truly shocking…

Link to BHA’s take action page and drafted email for this subject:

Take Action: Oppose State Land Exchange Policy Shift

At 9 am on Monday, May 18 in Helena, the Montana Board of Land Commissioners will consider sweeping revisions to the State's Land Exchange Policy that could significantly impact public land access, checkerboarded lands, access to navigable waters , and the future management of Montana's state...

takeaction.io

This potential policy shift doesn't seem like a planned thing, as some have suggested. It smells of desperate politicians and landowners that realized overnight that this could end up exactly like the 10th circuit did. They will attempt to jam access up with legal language that didn't exist in Wyoming State Code during the course of that lawsuit so that they can say it's an entirely different case, when it's obviously the exact same thing.

 

[jkoehle1]

My current understanding, and if I'm wrong, please correct me @mtwarden, is that corner crossing was viewed as illegal based upon the case law that came out of United States v. Causby (1946). Causby won that case (5-2). The precedent set by case law was that the property owner owned the "immediate reaches" of the airspace above their land.

The Court also, however, rejected the idea of absolute airspace ownership (applicable with regards to air traffic, etc.).

While no state statute exists I'm aware of, that case does seem applicable. While the case law wasn't cited by name (yes, I did need to look it up) the premise of the idea was explained much the same way as above when I inquired of it decades ago moving to MT.

I could absolutely be wrong and if I am, please ensure I'm corrected. But to the best of my knowledge, that is often where this issue hinges. The decision in WY surprised me and while I'm thrilled for those in that jurisdiction, I'm doubtful SCOTUS would reject US v. Causby, though they might refine/re-define it somehow. However, in doing so it would likely further complicate the issue legally (and in future cases) and as a layman, I suspect they would simply rule with US v. Causby in mind and rule against corner crossing. That would provide the cleanest legal ruling.

I'm all for corner crossing, but if it ever rises to SCOTUS and they hear it, I doubt it would become legal.

But then, at one point in life I used giant pencils, tried Elmer's glue to see what it tasted like, and couldn't color in the lines, so keep that in mind.

Like I said, I could be wrong.

The case cited is very different - and involves significant more infringement on ones property - Causbys chicken farms operations were interrupted by frequent flying of low altitude air craft.

Its explicitly not lawful or unlawful. It isnt legislated.

Do you expect to get a ticket if you put your arm over someones lawn on the sidewalk? If not, why are their property rights not the same?