Montana hunters need help getting corner crossing law changed

[bearpaw]

Private land access for hunting and fishing has been a long standing battle in Montana. People in the cities feel that landowners should allow them access on private land to hunt and fish. Landowners feel that they own the land and should not have to allow other people on their land.

So there has been this battle going on for years and both sides have been using various legislation to further their cause whenever possible. The whole block management program was born out of this long standing battle. The legislation a couple years ago where they eliminated the "outfitter sponsored licenses" was born out of this battle. The more numerous urban residents passed that legislation and other legislation which has hurt rural resident landowners, outfitters, and even businesses in small towns. It cut my Montana business in half, the motels I use in Montana have told me that they lost a lot of their fall business from myself and from other outfitters who used to use their motels. This has also effected other businesses in these small towns.

Having been  the victims of numerous pieces of legislation I think many landowners are opposed to most anything coming from the urban residents to gain access to their property. Most landowners know that many urban residents will use this legislation to gain access to public lands within their exterior ranch boundaries and then use that access to sneak (tresspass) onto their land whenever they can get away with it. I have seen so much tresspassing in Montana that it's disgusting and these trespassers use any excuse to justify trespassing. Many landowners look at license plates of vehicles to help know when problems are likely to occur. When they see vehicles driving slowly on county roads through their property they know they must be very watchful or they will likely be trespassed on. So there is a big reason many landowners and rural residents (mostly Republicans) are opposed to this legislation.

Other concerns are the careless actions of people in causing fires, ranchers can lose everything if someone starts a fire with carelessness. Most ranchers in Montana are very good stewards of their land, better than public agencies. These ranchers hate litter and they hate the ruts made by people driving when its muddy, and they know most of these people who do these things don't really give a darn about the land. They are only there to take advantage and then they leave.

Yes, from the outside it seems black and white that anyone should be able to step corner to corner on public property and I agree with that principal. But there are legitimate underlying reasons why there is strong oppposition, it is a well know fact that there are large numbers of people who will abuse that opportunity if the legislation passes.

Myself, I am on neither side because I understand both sides of the issue, unfortunately this really boils down to the abusers ruining it for everyone. If that's not bad enough then you have the haters, people who hate other people for some reason and are not going to give an inch no matter what, some of these people on both sides despise ranchers and outfitters or non-resident and resident "city slickers". Haters are prevelant on both sides of this issue. One thing is for certain, I'm sure that they will never make everyone happy. 

[JLS]

Bigtex, do you know if corner crossing is considered trespassing in Washington?

It is

Could you expand on that? How is it tresspassing if you never set foot on private property? Sure, your leg might swing over it, but never comes in contact with it. If landowners now controll the air above their property, is all air travel going to now be considered tresspassing? Not much difference if you ask me.

In 1925, the Montana Supreme Court determined a Mr. Sutherland firing a shotgun over Mr. Herrin’s land represented a trespass simply by the shot traveling through the airspace above Herrin’s property.

 In 1946, the US Supreme Court in US v Causby, held property rights extend above the surface with Justice Douglas writing “If the landowner is to have the full enjoyment of the land, he must have the exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run.” Invasions of the airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

Since supreme courts have held property rights extend an unspecific distance into the airspace, passing HB235 would be an unconstitutional taking, violating the Fifth Amendment

Phool,

Are you saying that flying over private land is trespassing?  I'm not tracking you here.  It's not illegal to access public land via aircraft.  Call FWP and ask them.  Randy Newberg hasn't been charged because it's not illegal.

[huntnphool]

Bigtex, do you know if corner crossing is considered trespassing in Washington?

It is

Could you expand on that? How is it tresspassing if you never set foot on private property? Sure, your leg might swing over it, but never comes in contact with it. If landowners now controll the air above their property, is all air travel going to now be considered tresspassing? Not much difference if you ask me.

In 1925, the Montana Supreme Court determined a Mr. Sutherland firing a shotgun over Mr. Herrin’s land represented a trespass simply by the shot traveling through the airspace above Herrin’s property.

 In 1946, the US Supreme Court in US v Causby, held property rights extend above the surface with Justice Douglas writing “If the landowner is to have the full enjoyment of the land, he must have the exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run.” Invasions of the airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

Since supreme courts have held property rights extend an unspecific distance into the airspace, passing HB235 would be an unconstitutional taking, violating the Fifth Amendment

Phool,

Are you saying that flying over private land is trespassing?  I'm not tracking you here.  It's not illegal to access public land via aircraft.  Call FWP and ask them.  Randy Newberg hasn't been charged because it's not illegal.

did you even read the post you quoted me on? What do the courts say in the cases above?

[fair-chase]

Private land access for hunting and fishing has been a long standing battle in Montana. People in the cities feel that landowners should allow them access on private land to hunt and fish. Landowners feel that they own the land and should not have to allow other people on their land.

So there has been this battle going on for years and both sides have been using various legislation to further their cause whenever possible. The whole block management program was born out of this long standing battle. The legislation a couple years ago where they eliminated the "outfitter sponsored licenses" was born out of this battle. The more numerous urban residents passed that legislation and other legislation which has hurt rural resident landowners, outfitters, and even businesses in small towns. It cut my Montana business in half, the motels I use in Montana have told me that they lost a lot of their fall business from myself and from other outfitters who used to use their motels. This has also effected other businesses in these small towns.

Having been  the victims of numerous pieces of legislation I think many landowners are opposed to most anything coming from the urban residents to gain access to their property. Most landowners know that many urban residents will use this legislation to gain access to public lands within their exterior ranch boundaries and then use that access to sneak (tresspass) onto their land whenever they can get away with it. I have seen so much tresspassing in Montana that it's disgusting and these trespassers use any excuse to justify trespassing. Many landowners look at license plates of vehicles to help know when problems are likely to occur. When they see vehicles driving slowly on county roads through their property they know they must be very watchful or they will likely be trespassed on. So there is a big reason many landowners and rural residents (mostly Republicans) are opposed to this legislation.

Other concerns are the careless actions of people in causing fires, ranchers can lose everything if someone starts a fire with carelessness. Most ranchers in Montana are very good stewards of their land, better than public agencies. These ranchers hate litter and they hate the ruts made by people driving when its muddy, and they know most of these people who do these things don't really give a darn about the land. They are only there to take advantage and then they leave.

Yes, from the outside it seems black and white that anyone should be able to step corner to corner on public property and I agree with that principal. But there are legitimate underlying reasons why there is strong oppposition, it is a well know fact that there are large numbers of people who will abuse that opportunity if the legislation passes.

Myself, I am on neither side because I understand both sides of the issue, unfortunately this really boils down to the abusers ruining it for everyone. If that's not bad enough then you have the haters, people who hate other people for some reason and are not going to give an inch no matter what, some of these people on both sides despise ranchers and outfitters or non-resident and resident "city slickers". Haters are prevelant on both sides of this issue. One thing is for certain, I'm sure that they will never make everyone happy. 

Great post Bearpaw.    Hey Huntnphool, why couldn't you have said it this eloquently? 



I see where your coming from but I still have to side with the public having access to public lands. Is corner hopping the final solution? Not by a long shot. But it's a start. Ideally, I would like to see these tracts exchanged for contiguous, accessable tracts, that have an equal value both in economic and biological resources. That's easier said than done though so that would be a more long term solution that would take decades (if ever) to accomplish.

As far as the landowners go, just as it is with hunters, there are good and bad apples in both groups. Sure some (maybe even most) landowners are concerned about the resources and object to this on the grounds that it is best for wildlife. But I would wager that a significant number also seek to keep the public out for selfish reasons such as increasing there landholdings and profiting off the public lands without actually having to purchase the property or in many cases even pay the measly lease prices.

[bigtex]

I did read it. Never saw where he said flying into public land was illegal. I very much doubt that Randy would do anything illegal and then put it on TV.

Typically you do need to have some type of permit to land on federally owned lands. I remember an instance from a couple years ago where a helicopter pilot landed illegally on BLM land in the San Juan Islands.

[huntnphool]

Private land access for hunting and fishing has been a long standing battle in Montana. People in the cities feel that landowners should allow them access on private land to hunt and fish. Landowners feel that they own the land and should not have to allow other people on their land.

So there has been this battle going on for years and both sides have been using various legislation to further their cause whenever possible. The whole block management program was born out of this long standing battle. The legislation a couple years ago where they eliminated the "outfitter sponsored licenses" was born out of this battle. The more numerous urban residents passed that legislation and other legislation which has hurt rural resident landowners, outfitters, and even businesses in small towns. It cut my Montana business in half, the motels I use in Montana have told me that they lost a lot of their fall business from myself and from other outfitters who used to use their motels. This has also effected other businesses in these small towns.

Having been  the victims of numerous pieces of legislation I think many landowners are opposed to most anything coming from the urban residents to gain access to their property. Most landowners know that many urban residents will use this legislation to gain access to public lands within their exterior ranch boundaries and then use that access to sneak (tresspass) onto their land whenever they can get away with it. I have seen so much tresspassing in Montana that it's disgusting and these trespassers use any excuse to justify trespassing. Many landowners look at license plates of vehicles to help know when problems are likely to occur. When they see vehicles driving slowly on county roads through their property they know they must be very watchful or they will likely be trespassed on. So there is a big reason many landowners and rural residents (mostly Republicans) are opposed to this legislation.

Other concerns are the careless actions of people in causing fires, ranchers can lose everything if someone starts a fire with carelessness. Most ranchers in Montana are very good stewards of their land, better than public agencies. These ranchers hate litter and they hate the ruts made by people driving when its muddy, and they know most of these people who do these things don't really give a darn about the land. They are only there to take advantage and then they leave.

Yes, from the outside it seems black and white that anyone should be able to step corner to corner on public property and I agree with that principal. But there are legitimate underlying reasons why there is strong oppposition, it is a well know fact that there are large numbers of people who will abuse that opportunity if the legislation passes.

Myself, I am on neither side because I understand both sides of the issue, unfortunately this really boils down to the abusers ruining it for everyone. If that's not bad enough then you have the haters, people who hate other people for some reason and are not going to give an inch no matter what, some of these people on both sides despise ranchers and outfitters or non-resident and resident "city slickers". Haters are prevelant on both sides of this issue. One thing is for certain, I'm sure that they will never make everyone happy. 

Great post Bearpaw.    Hey Huntnphool, why couldn't you have said it this eloquently? 



I see where your coming from but I still have to side with the public having access to public lands. Is corner hopping the final solution? Not by a long shot. But it's a start. Ideally, I would like to see these tracts exchanged for contiguous, accessable tracts, that have an equal value both in economic and biological resources. That's easier said than done though so that would be a more long term solution that would take decades (if ever) to accomplish.

As far as the landowners go, just as it is with hunters, there are good and bad apples in both groups. Sure some (maybe even most) landowners are concerned about the resources and object to this on the grounds that it is best for wildlife. But I would wager that a significant number also seek to keep the public out for selfish reasons such as increasing there landholdings and profiting off the public lands without actually having to purchase the property or in many cases even pay the measly lease prices.

LOL, that was a good post by Dale indeed, however there are several other factors that he so "elequently" left out. We have discussed those factors in other threads so I will leave you to do your homework if you are so inclined.

[fair-chase]

I will do that. 

[bow-n-head]

Shouldn't be illegal anyway. There is a 60 ft right of way on section lines. I have been maintaining and building public roads for 20 years. We can put a road in any section line we want.

That's not true. The state or county may acquire that right of way for building a road, but the general public does not have a 60 foot wide right of way on every section line across private lands.

Thats funny I have farmers stop me and ask me to grade that county road. They are talking about a section line. Another farmer drives in my brothers field and says it is a section line and he has the right of way. They like to use it to their benefit, but when it comes to a hunter the rules should change. I Get so pissed when everyone talks about hunters leaving trash, and what ever else they can blame hunters on. THE BIGGEST MESS IN THE OUTDOORS IS LEFT BY RANCHERS AND THEIR JUNK. DILAPIDATED FENCES, JUNKED VEHICLES, AND THEIR COWS RUIN CREEKS. COW *censored* SO THICK YOU CAN'T HELP BUT STEP IN IT. THAT STUFF DOESN'T JUST GO AWAY.   GET EM  E.P.A.

[Kazekurt]

I'm with the public on this one!  Any state land that can be accessed without trespass should be fair game.  With GPS and up to date mapping checker boarding is easy.  I've walked to and crossed at bureau stakes hundreds of times, and often without the aid of a fence to guide me.  I've started walking at 3am just to legally access a spot on state ground that was only 1/2 a mile from a road, but a 4 mile walk to me as I had to pick my way around private ground. 
I understand landowner concerns but you should never punish or remove the rights of the law abiding public simply to prevent the unlawful actions of others.  To justify this would be the same as supporting the banning of guns due to one person shooting people or the banning of cars because one person chose to drive drunk!  The bottom line is punish the perpetrators; not the law abiding.
Furthermore, while some landowners have legitimate concerns, others are simply trying to profit from such laws.  I've had two different landowners gripe that my public land hunting is costing them money as their pay hunters complain if I get a nice buck.  I've also caught landowners illegally posting public land and have forced them to fix it.  Most landowners are cool; but due to the actions of a few vigilanty landowners in my area I actually carry copies of a couple RCW's in my pack.  These landowners have learned the hard way to respect me. At first, they tried to bluff me off state ground by claiming it was private.  Then, they threatened to call the warden and were quite shocked when I replied, "please do!"  One has tried to park in front of my blinds, herd deer away from me, etc.  I've always found it ironic that these two guys are so zealous in enforcing trespass laws, yet routinely break several other laws themselves. I always smile and wave when they see me walk right down the property line.  They still try to run my buddies off with their usual tactics but as soon as they see me they don't even bother talking to me anymore. 
My point in sharing this is to show that it goes both ways .  There is no excuse for breaking the law; by hunters or landowners.  I believe all hunters should advocate good ethics and that common courtesy and Civility should prevail!  Infighting just fractures us and will eventually weaken our position in an ever increasing struggle against anti hunters.  Landowners should respect the ethical hunters that educate themselves and hunt legally.  In many cases, public land is our only way to enjoy the sport we love and pass on our passion  to our children.  We already operate at a significant disadvantage so why try to make it even harder on us.  We are often also your best ally against poachers and trespassers as we often witness these crimes and are just as pissed as you are when we see it because illegally hunting certainly doesn't benefit us either.  I've even reported illegal activity to the landowners that harass me just because it's the right thing to do.  Anyway, its a dangerous game to start limiting the rights of others as it usually eventually takes rights away from you as we'll.

[JLS]

did you even read the post you quoted me on? What do the courts say in the cases above?
[/quote]

I did, and I'm not tracking your argument.  That's why I said "I'm not sure I'm tracking you here". 

I've read the case law and I know what's legal.

[deerslyr]

I am drooling over the vast amounts of land this is going to open up if it goes through. Ive found a few areas where I could get miles from the nearest county road.

[csaaphill]

regardless still suported it thanks bobcat.

[Tman]

In all reality, there should be zero public land we cant access by easement. If its blocked and no access deeded, the state should be forced either correct the access issue or sell/buy/trade for another section that is more easily accessed.  If "we" own it we should be able to reasonably expect to use it, with very few exceptions.

I know in the winston unit the state has changed ownership of several sections with weyerhauser to bring the stateland into larger pieces instead of this checkerboard of unaccessible land.