Montana hunters need help getting corner crossing law changed

[fair-chase]

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

Such as???

[westside Elkhunter]

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

Such as???

I'm wondering the same thing? What would the they're valid reasons be?

[huntnphool]

No valid reasons, just selfish.

Really? How about litter, or smoldering cigarette butts, just to name a couple?

[huntnphool]

Well?......Bobcat?.....Westside?......fairchace?

Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets.

[bobcat]

No valid reasons, just selfish.

Really? How about litter, or smoldering cigarette butts, just to name a couple?

That's no more a concern for them, than it is for me. I don't want my public land being trashed either, but a person shouldn't have more say in who accesses that public land, just because they happen to live next door.

[huntnphool]

No valid reasons, just selfish.

Really? How about litter, or smoldering cigarette butts, just to name a couple?

That's no more a concern for them, than it is for me. I don't want my public land being trashed either, but a person shouldn't have more say in who accesses that public land, just because they happen to live next door.

If you depended on your land feeding your cattle it would concern you.

[bobcat]

It may concern me, but it still wouldn't be a valid reason to keep the public off public land. 

[westside Elkhunter]

Those are very valid points huntnphool. Like bobcat said i don't like public property trashed either. This year where i hunted i picked up three garbage sacks of garbage. That i also packed home with me . It is aggravating but it happens every where.

[Bob33]

I can understand not wanting someone hunting next to my property. I wouldn't go so far as trying to exclude them from accessing public land, however.

[fair-chase]

Well?..............Bobcat?.....Westside?.......fairchace?

Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets.

Good grief, a little impatient today? 





I'm a little confused about your theory. Are you asserting that we should close off all public lands because the less desirables may litter? Should we adopt this theory to all public lands equally? Or is this just an excuse to essentially double the land holdings of a few select individuals?

[Bob33]

At what point do you get cited: when you are standing on public ground looking across at more public land, when you are standing on public land that you just stepped onto from more public land, or when you are straddling two parcels of public land?

[bigtex]

It may concern me, but it still wouldn't be a valid reason to keep the public off public land.

The issue of checkerboarding is seen in many western states, including WA, especially on the eastside. In WA it is commonly seen with BLM and DNR land, as well as BOR in the Columbia Basin area. BLM has been great at either acquiring access to these landlocked/checkerboarded areas, or getting rid of those lands in exchange for lands the public can use. You can't say that for BOR and DNR. The reason is simple, for BLM their main mission is turning more recreation based. For BOR and DNR, it is for the better of the government. DNR lands are mainly owned by DNR for the sale of timber, agricultural leases, etc. For BOR it is also for agriculural leases, as well as water/irrigation issues.

The areas of BOR land in the Columbia Basin that actually do pose a recreational purpose are actually not managed by BOR, but rather WDFW. Most of the WDFW Wildlife Areas in Grant and Adams Counties are actually owned by BOR, but managed by WDFW.

Personally I think WA is in need of a large scale state/federal land exchange/swap that has been seen in other states. There is no need to have parcels of BLM lands in a national forest. Many WDFW Wildlife Areas on the eastside have BLM land where WDFW has agreed to manage the land for BLM, why transfer ownership of those areas to WDFW? There are areas of BOR land in Grant County for example that neighbors a large BLM area and has no irrigation/water use, why isn't it BLM?

Is it an issue for the public? Not really. But when it comes to govt efficiency and management it is, it can have a lot of impacts. WDFW and DNR coducted three large land exchanges in the past 6 years or so that removed a lot of checkerboarding and as a result the DNR Naneum State Forest was created. Prior to that it was DNR parcel next to WDFW next to DNR, etc.

Here is a perfect example, the "Seep Lakes" area near Potholes Reservoir:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/webmaps/gohunt/wildlife_area_pdf/WLAU_1000909.pdf
In the middle you have a National Wildlife Refuge under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. To the east and west you have BOR land that is owned by BOR but managed by WDFW as the Seep Lakes Unit and Goose Lakes Units of the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area. To the north you have Potholes Reservoir which is owned by BOR but managed by WDFW as the Potholes Reservoir Unit. And in addition you have 4 DNR parcels either bordering or surrounded by other state/federal agency lands. So in that one small area you have three seperate WDFW Wildlife Area Units, two federal agencies, one national wildlife refuge, and 2 state agencies. Think there can be some exchanges/acquisitions to make it more efficient? Of course! In fact it is in the plan for the National Wildlife Refuge to try and acquire the Goose Lakes area currently owned by BOR and managed by WDFW, will it happen? Who knows. The reasoning is there are USFWS staff in the area to manage/upkeep, while there is no WDFW staff. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that whole area going to USFWS.

Another example, the Lower Crab Creek Area:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/webmaps/gohunt/wildlife_area_pdf/WLAU_1000907.pdf
In the creek valley area you have the Lower Crab Creek Unit of the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area which consists of WDFW lands. You also have USFWS National Wildlife Refuge lands in the same area, checkerboarded with WDFW lands. South of that are the Saddle Mountains which consists of USFWS, DNR, BLM, and BOR lands. And NW of the valley you have a large area of BOR lands not managed by WDFW. And on the extreme West end of the valley you have a parcel of DNR land managed by DNR as the Beverly Dunes ORV Area. Now it is current policy for USFWS to eliminate their lands in the Crab Creek area. However looking at the Saddle Mountains which is primarily BLM and is becoming a very popular area for BLM land users, why can't those DNR and BOR lands be moved to BLM ownership?

So how can it happen? Congress needs to pass a bill. Even the anti-federal state of Utah was able to sit down and establish a plan to exchange state land for federal land. It just hasn't been passed through Conress.

[deerslyr]

Those who say this will do very little for hunters in montana must not have much experience hunting public land in montana. I thought you hunted a good bit in montana  phool?  There are tons of places where this would help hunters, hell I can open just about any page in the montana gazetteer and find places where this would apply.

[huntnphool]

Well?..............Bobcat?.....Westside?.......fairchace?

Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets.

I'm a little confused about your theory. Are you asserting that we should close off all public lands because the less desirables may litter? Should we adopt this theory to all public lands equally?

Absolutely not, and if you go back to post #28 I simply said I can think of valid reasons land owners would be opposed, wouldn't you be opposed if you owned the land? I think you would.

[huntnphool]

Those who say this will do very little for hunters in montana must not have much experience hunting public land in montana. I thought you hunted a good bit in montana  phool?  There are tons of places where this would help hunters, hell I can open just about any page in the montana gazetteer and find places where this would apply.

I didn't say there wasn't, I said there isn't many. I believe people are thinking this will allow them access to public land that is landlocked by private, it won't!!! If you can find a section where a road goes through it that has a adjoining corner section then I see nothing wrong with it, I know several land owners, including myself, that doesn't have a problem with it, but another reason land owners are opposed is because it will be abused with people accessing other areas that are land locked but do not have corner sections. You all know it will happen, lets not get it twisted.