Montana hunters need help getting corner crossing law changed

[huntnphool]

There are lots of checkerboard public land in all the western states. Often one section will have legal access to it (public road) but an adjoining section will not. These two sections are joined at their corners. A person should be able to step from one section to the other without stepping on private property, but of course the private landowners don't like this. They'd rather keep the public off OUR public property so they can have exclusive use of it.

The people of Montana are trying to change the law so that they can access their public land.

Understood, but like I said there are few places where this will actually apply.

[bobcat]

Huntinphool, you need to go to the link I provided. There is a memo posted there by Randy Newberg written by a well known attorney, and that memo goes into detail as to why allowing corner crossing would NOT be unconstitutional.

[Bob33]

This is a map of land ownership northeast of Moses Lake. White denotes private land; blue denotes state land, and yellow denotes BLM. There are several public access points. Once on any public land parcel, one could cross onto other public parcels for miles if corner crossing were legal.

[fair-chase]

Thanks Huntnphool.

[huntnphool]

This is a map of land ownership northeast of Moses Lake. White denotes private land; blue denotes state land, and yellow denotes BLM. There are several public access points. Once on any public land parcel, one could cross onto other public parcels for miles if corner crossing were legal.

Yep, and in those cases this would apply but in Montana there are few places like this.

[Bob33]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

[huntnphool]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

[bobcat]

This is Randy Newberg's post from the link that I already provided. To read the memo he mentions, you will have to go to that site, and here is the link again:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253801

 Corner Crossing - Where to go from here?
Now that the Montana corner crossing bill was voted down by a straight party-line vote in committee, it is time to think of the next step on this topic. The topic is not going away.

I am copying a couple posts from the other thread, to start this one and give people more background. This bill, if passed in Montana, will lay the roadmap for doing the same thing in other states, as much of the defense that opponents use is based on the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. Defenses you will see are not valid, based on the information below.

In the last day, a brief was prepared by the premier access law firm in the Rockies, the Goetz Law Firm here in Bozeman. See the attached images below that show their findings.

Their findings are - For the reasons set forth herein, HB 235, if passed into law, will not constitute a taking and is constitutional under the Montana and Federal Constitutions.

Jim Goetz is the attorney who argued the stream access case in 1986 that went all the way to the Montana Supreme Court, giving us our current stream access law. He also successfully defended MT FWP Commission in front of the US Supreme Court in the Baldwin v. Commissioner case, a case that determined that hunting was not commerce and therefore the Interstate Commerce Rules of the US Constitution did not apply when charging different/higher license fees to non-residents.

I have hired Jim to do work in the past. One of the smartest attorneys I know. His firm is filled with the brightest minds on this topic.

In this brief that it is shown that corner crossing not a “takings” issue and does not interfere with the private property rights of the adjacent private landowners, per the Montana and Federal Constitutions.

So, where are these folks going to run and hide now that the most respected law firm on this topic has found there to be nothing unconstitutional about this bill. Talk about hypocrisy. The next time one of these tea baggers try to tell me they are a property rights advocate, I am going to break into hysterical laughter, right in front of them.

Read the brief yourself. Here it is below.
Attached Images
   

[huntnphool]

Huntinphool, you need to go to the link I provided. There is a memo posted there by Randy Newberg written by a well known attorney, and that memo goes into detail as to why allowing corner crossing would NOT be unconstitutional.

I read the whole thing and understand it, it's just not going to allow as much access as people think.

[Bob33]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."

[huntnphool]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

"Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."

Well that should not be a surprise, it's the Dems that want to take from the rich and give to the lazy, poor work ethic, woe is me, I want my fair share crowd.

[bobcat]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."

Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.

Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.

[Bob33]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."

Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.

Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.

Other than the obvious: selfishness, is there any other reason to be opposed to this?

[huntnphool]

What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?

Who is arguing opposition?

According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."

Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.

Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.

Other than the obvious: selfishness, is there any other reason to be opposed to this?

I could think of several valid reasons landowners would be opposed.

[bobcat]

No valid reasons, just selfish.

And I don't blame them! If I had control of public land because I had the only legal access, I wouldn't want to give that up either.