Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 12:14:02 AM
If corner crossing were legal, it would enable hunters to cross from one section of public land into another, one in which there is no other legal access.
There is a lot of "checkerboard" public land in Montana, and this would be a great thing for public land hunters. Of course it is opposed by the landowners who have exclusive access to all this public land.
Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it.
Read more about it here: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253801 (http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253801)
They are asking for hunters, especially non residents, to write to the Montana politicians and support this bill.
(They have other ways of trying to push it through now that it got voted down by the legislature)
Post by: mfswallace on February 01, 2013, 12:30:06 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 01:46:59 PM
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 02:00:12 PM
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253781 (http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253781)
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:07:55 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:12:25 PM
I don't see how this will do hunters any good, there are very few places where corner crossing occurs.
Are you serious? It may not occur very often, but that is because it is considered trespassing, even though you never set foot on private property.
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 02:14:42 PM
I don't see how this will do hunters any good, there are very few places where corner crossing occurs.
Are you serious? It may not occur very often, but that is because it is considered trespassing, even though you never set foot on private property.
:yeah:
Quite a bit of it in eastern WA
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:15:39 PM
Im talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here. There are blocks throughout Montana, Wyoming and Idaho but few of them allow the general public access, and even fewer have access to one block with the corner adjoining another block.I don't see how this will do hunters any good, there are very few places where corner crossing occurs.
Are you serious? It may not occur very often, but that is because it is considered trespassing, even though you never set foot on private property.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:16:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 02:17:10 PM
Bigtex, do you know if corner crossing is considered trespassing in Washington?
It is
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:19:18 PM
sure there are, but unless a road goes through it the land owners do not have to give easement to it. HB235 does not give easement across private land to these small sections, it is for blocks of public land joining at the corners, you must still have accessed one of the blocks by road.I don't see how this will do hunters any good, there are very few places where corner crossing occurs.
Are you serious? It may not occur very often, but that is because it is considered trespassing, even though you never set foot on private property.
:yeah:
Quite a bit of it in eastern WA
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:19:42 PM
Quote
Im talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
Post by: fair-chase on February 01, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:24:52 PM
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.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 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
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:27:31 PM
The people of Montana are trying to change the law so that they can access their public land.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:29:48 PM
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.Understood, but like I said there are few places where this will actually apply.
The people of Montana are trying to change the law so that they can access their public land.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:30:40 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 02:30:53 PM
Post by: fair-chase on February 01, 2013, 02:31:40 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:33:23 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 02:40:58 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:41:57 PM
What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:46:56 PM
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253801 (http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=253801)
Quote
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
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:50:53 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:56:32 PM
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. :twocents:"Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.
Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
Other than the obvious: selfishness, is there any other reason to be opposed to this?According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.
Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
I could think of several valid reasons landowners would be opposed.Other than the obvious: selfishness, is there any other reason to be opposed to this?According to Bobcat "Not too surprisingly, all the Republicans voted against this change, and Democrats voted for it."What is the logic behind opposing this? If one steps from public to public land, why is that not acceptable?Who is arguing opposition?
Landowners and outfitters are not in favor of this change, for obvious reasons.
Apparently, ALL the R's sided with them.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 03:06:26 PM
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.
Post by: fair-chase on February 01, 2013, 03:07:14 PM
I could think of several valid reasons landowners would be opposed.
Such as???
Post by: westside Elkhunter on February 01, 2013, 03:19:11 PM
I'm wondering the same thing? What would the they're valid reasons be?I could think of several valid reasons landowners would be opposed.
Such as???
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 03:19:51 PM
No valid reasons, just selfish.Really? How about litter, or smoldering cigarette butts, just to name a couple?
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 03:29:14 PM
Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets. :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 03:29:42 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 03:32:29 PM
If you depended on your land feeding your cattle it would concern you.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.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
Post by: westside Elkhunter on February 01, 2013, 03:38:19 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 03:47:22 PM
Post by: fair-chase on February 01, 2013, 04:03:04 PM
Well?..............Bobcat?.....Westside?.......fairchace?
Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets. :chuckle:
Good grief, a little impatient today? :chuckle:
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?
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 04:10:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 01, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
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 (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 (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.
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 04:17:44 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:22:15 PM
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. ;)Well?..............Bobcat?.....Westside?.......fairchace?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?
Are those not valid enough? I'm hearing crickets. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:28:43 PM
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. ;)
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:30:37 PM
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.
Absolutely not true. There are areas all over Montana where this would be a benefit.
Post by: Echomules on February 01, 2013, 04:30:41 PM
I can open just about any page in the montana gazetteer and find places where this would apply.
I would have to agree with this statement.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:36:12 PM
:chuckle: I guess it depends on your definition of all over. I can guarantee you there are way more acres in Montana that are corner joined that you can't access than acres that are corner joined that you can. Of course we are talking about areas surounded mostly by private land and not the huge expanses of NF, DNR etc. ;)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.
Absolutely not true. There are areas all over Montana where this would be a benefit.
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:37:50 PM
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. ;)
I don't see where anyone said that this would allow people to directly access landlocked parcels from the road. However it will allow them to access from legal easements.
I can't even begin to fathom how you can say that this is not that big of an issue for Montana. I could name you location after location and county after county. I won't, because anyone with a Gazetteer can easily see it.
To say that more legal access shouldn't be granted because people might trespass is absolutely silly. People trespass right now. Why should we withhold what should be legal access because of the wrong actions of a small segment of the population?
Heaven forbid we should allow the unwashed public access to public ground.
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:39:31 PM
:chuckle: I guess it depends on your definition of all over. I can guarantee you there are way more acres in Montana that are corner joined that you can't access than acres that are corner joined that you can. Of course we are talking about areas surounded mostly by private land and not the huge expanses of NF, DNR etc. ;)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.
Absolutely not true. There are areas all over Montana where this would be a benefit.
I don't care if there are more inaccessible acres than accessible acres. If that's the crux of your argument fine, but it's really irrelevant to the fact that this would allow a significant amount of access to public lands.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:41:36 PM
What general area do you hunt?:chuckle: I guess it depends on your definition of all over. I can guarantee you there are way more acres in Montana that are corner joined that you can't access than acres that are corner joined that you can. Of course we are talking about areas surounded mostly by private land and not the huge expanses of NF, DNR etc. ;)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.
Absolutely not true. There are areas all over Montana where this would be a benefit.
I don't care if there are more inaccessible acres than accessible acres. If that's the crux of your argument fine, but it's really irrelevant to the fact that this would allow a significant amount of access to public lands.
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:44:37 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:46:48 PM
I don't mind a good debate but that should not include trying to put words in my mouth. I never said it wasn't a big issue for Montana.
I don't see where anyone said that this would allow people to directly access landlocked parcels from the road. However it will allow them to access from legal easements.
I can't even begin to fathom how you can say that this is not that big of an issue for Montana. I could name you location after location and county after county. I won't, because anyone with a Gazetteer can easily see it.
To say that more legal access shouldn't be granted because people might trespass is absolutely silly. People trespass right now. Why should we withhold what should be legal access because of the wrong actions of a small segment of the population?
Heaven forbid we should allow the unwashed public access to public ground.
If you go back and read what I said you will see that I don't have a issue with it, I only stated that I can think of reasons why land owners would oppose it. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:48:58 PM
I've hunted regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.So have I. Pick a area you wanted to hunt but you were not allowed access because of corner crossing and post it up here for us to see if you would. :tup:
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:50:41 PM
I've hunted regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.So have I. Pick a area you wanted to hunt but you were not allowed access because of corner crossing and post it up here for us to see if you would. :tup:
North part of bridgers
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 04:55:33 PM
Can you post a pic to show people where you couldn't access?I've hunted regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.So have I. Pick a area you wanted to hunt but you were not allowed access because of corner crossing and post it up here for us to see if you would. :tup:
North part of bridgers
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 04:57:14 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 05:06:12 PM
No.How about one of the other areas you were hunting around that you couldn't access because of corner crossing.
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 05:10:31 PM
It seems you are intent on amount of acreage. I'm not. As you well know, a quality hunting spot might be 640 acres or less.
And, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so it was an unfair extrapolation on my part to equate your opinions to it not being a big deal.
I don't have any interest in creating a laundry list of places that this would affect. Your perception of affecting very many places is obviously different than mine. If that's the case there's no point in arguing, no one has to be right.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
It seems you are intent on amount of acreage. I'm not. As you well know, a quality hunting spot might be 640 acres or less.Anytime you want to grab your maps, I'll grab mine and we can go over them over a beer or two, I think I can show you that in the grand scheme of things this will not open as much land as most people believe it will. ;)
And, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so it was an unfair extrapolation on my part to equate your opinions to it not being a big deal.
I don't have any interest in creating a laundry list of places that this would affect. Your perception of affecting very many places is obviously different than mine.
I can show you loads of corner joined sections of public land that still will not be accessable, more so than land that will be accessable with the passing on HB235 is my point.
So to reiterate, I don't have a problem with it and understand it will open up access to some previously locked land.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 05:22:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 05:23:55 PM
If it opened up just one section (1 sq mile) of public land, it would still be a worthwhile change to the law in Montana. And as Randy Newberg said, this could lead the way for other states to do the same.Agreed
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 05:26:23 PM
It seems you are intent on amount of acreage. I'm not. As you well know, a quality hunting spot might be 640 acres or less.Anytime you want to grab your maps, I'll grab mine and we can go over them over a beer or two, I think I can show you that in the grand scheme of things this will not open as much land as most people believe it will. ;)
And, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth so it was an unfair extrapolation on my part to equate your opinions to it not being a big deal.
I don't have any interest in creating a laundry list of places that this would affect. Your perception of affecting very many places is obviously different than mine.
I can show you loads of corner joined sections of public land that still will not be accessable, more so than land that will be accessable with the passing on HB235 is my point.
So to reiterate, I don't have a problem with it and understand it will open up access to some previously locked land.
And you could be absolutely correct, I don't know what folks' perception is about how "much" land will be opened up. How "much" is significant? How "much" is insignificant?
In my humble opinion and my perception (which is my reality 8)) it would affect a lot of areas.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 01, 2013, 06:19:32 PM
second would be liability. While in process of crossing through private property (at a corner it is finite point so covers no area), someone gets injured...will the state assume the liability with this law or pass on to the landowners.
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 06:23:18 PM
first I wonder how it can/could be abused--is the crossing only legal at exactly the corner? Like the corner fence post? Or will lots of people be crossing at the easy side on someone's private property--'legally' damaging fence. Who would compensate for the damages to property.Liability was another point I was going to bring up but it got interesting enough with the other two points. :chuckle:
second would be liability. While in process of crossing through private property (at a corner it is finite point so covers no area), someone gets injured...will the state assume the liability with this law or pass on to the landowners.
Post by: 3dvapor on February 01, 2013, 06:36:09 PM
Post by: bow-n-head on February 01, 2013, 07:04:16 PM
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. ;)
Yea I can access several sections in corner crossings by accessing one by boat.
Post by: bow-n-head on February 01, 2013, 07:10:58 PM
There are a select few making money off these acres. Their leases are a joke. Put that land into the tax base.
My father owns a farm, my brother owns a farm/ranch with cattle. And I side with the public on access.
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 07:25:42 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 01, 2013, 07:34:10 PM
Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
Post by: Curly on February 01, 2013, 07:36:25 PM
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 07:51:33 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 07:55:32 PM
and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
Post by: bow-n-head on February 01, 2013, 08:06:21 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 08:11:56 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 08:17:01 PM
and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
Post by: csaaphill on February 01, 2013, 08:22:39 PM
Post by: Hawgdawg on February 01, 2013, 08:28:40 PM
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 08:29:59 PM
and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
Post by: 6x6in6 on February 01, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
MT has the no hunting the same day you fly gig. Next day, good to go. Page 12 of 2012 MT regs.and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
Post by: deerslyr on February 01, 2013, 08:55:18 PM
MT has the no hunting the same day you fly gig. Next day, good to go. Page 12 of 2012 MT regs.and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
He doesnt hunt the same day as shown in his shows
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 08:58:40 PM
Oh come on Bob, you told me to read the link you posted, the least you could have done was read it yourself. :chuckle:and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
Quote
Similarly, HB 235 does not create a nuisance on private property so as to to constitute a taking under inverse condemnation law. While invading airspace over private land may constitute a nuisance in certain circumstances, it only does so when it is of sufficient magnitude to constitute "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of land." U.S. v.Causby, 328 U.S. 256,266 (1946); see also Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 233 OR 178 (Or.1962)(interference by airport activities must be "sufficiently direct, sufficiently peculiar, and of sufficient magnitude" to support a taking claim.) Stepping over an infitesimal corner of private land does not amount to "direct and immediate" interference with the use and enjoyment of land.
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:07:32 PM
I did read it. Never saw where he said flying into public land was illegal.He doesn't say flying into public land is illegal, he does say that "invading airspace over private land" is. "It does so when it is of sufficient magnitude to constitute a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land"
The sound of a helicopter, while considered normal here, could easily be construde as "a nuisance" in Montana. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:33:39 PM
Is that to say he didn't break the law or didn't get caught/prosecuted? There have been plenty of TV hunting celebs that have broken the law, some even aired their hunts on the hunting shows.and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
Post by: huntnphool on February 01, 2013, 09:39:58 PM
Post by: JLS on February 01, 2013, 11:55:33 PM
I just took a bunch of pics out of pages of the gazetteer to show very large areas where corning hopping would be beneficial. I now dont want to disclose these areas because they could offer some spectacular opportunities. I sure hopes this passes. I found several areas in the area JLS mentioned earlier as well. Dont worry JLS, I have no plans to hunt those areas, I hunt the mnt range to the west of there ;)
Have at it, I don't hunt that area anymore. I think it could offer good opportunities if the access was there and one had the time to learn it well. I saw a couple of good bulls in that area.
Post by: JLS on February 02, 2013, 12:06:27 AM
Is that to say he didn't break the law or didn't get caught/prosecuted? There have been plenty of TV hunting celebs that have broken the law, some even aired their hunts on the hunting shows.and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
That's because what he is doing is not illegal. You would have a pretty hard time articulating that an aircraft flying over your airspace is a taking if the pilot is following all FAA rules.
Also, 6x6in6, MT is not a same day fly rule. You can fly and hunt the same day, you just can't use the aircraft to locate game animals. For the purposes of flying into a BLM section in a chopper, that would pretty much make it a defacto same day rule. However, say you fly into Schaffer airstrip in the Bob Marshall in a Supercub, you could legitimately hop out and hunt the same day.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2013, 12:24:45 AM
years ago there was a nice piece of real estate landlocked inside the Seattle watershed. You could grab a helicopter ride into it. Not sure if it's true but I heard hear say that they annexed it so hunters couldn't hunt it anymore. Might not be a bad way to get to the glory hole.
Different game seasons back then.
Now the Cedar River Watershed GMU is closed year round, so even if you were on private lands, you would be hunting out of season.
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2013, 01:12:48 AM
its already been ruled in the courts, go back and read post #13 ;)Is that to say he didn't break the law or didn't get caught/prosecuted? There have been plenty of TV hunting celebs that have broken the law, some even aired their hunts on the hunting shows.and if you read Randy's write up it clearly says that is illegal.QuoteIm talking about how few places there are where the corners of public land actually come into play here.
Huntnphool, tell that to Randy Newberg.
Ironically, I saw a show of Randy's on TV recently where he helicopted into totally landlocked public land in Montana to hunt elk for a week. He was completedly surrounded by private land and was into elk all week long. Pretty interesting.
I find that hard to believe. I know it's legal in this state. So why isn't it in Montana? And why would Randy Newberg do it and then admit that he broke the law?
He done it on 2 or 3 occasions and put the film on television, with out suffering any sort of repercussion from the law?
That's because what he is doing is not illegal. You would have a pretty hard time articulating that an aircraft flying over your airspace is a taking if the pilot is following all FAA rules.
Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2013, 04:09:38 AM
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. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on February 02, 2013, 12:05:09 PM
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.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 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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2013, 01:23:57 PM
did you even read the post you quoted me on? What do the courts say in the cases above?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.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 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.
Post by: fair-chase on February 02, 2013, 04:49:53 PM
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. :twocents:
Great post Bearpaw. :tup: Hey Huntnphool, why couldn't you have said it this eloquently? :chuckle:
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.
Post by: bigtex on February 02, 2013, 04:53:18 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on February 02, 2013, 05:17:12 PM
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. ;)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. :twocents:
Great post Bearpaw. :tup: Hey Huntnphool, why couldn't you have said it this eloquently? :chuckle:
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.
Post by: fair-chase on February 02, 2013, 05:27:04 PM
Post by: bow-n-head on February 02, 2013, 05:47:08 PM
QuoteShouldn'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.
Post by: Kazekurt on February 02, 2013, 06:30:00 PM
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.
Post by: JLS on February 02, 2013, 08:37:58 PM
[/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.
Post by: deerslyr on February 02, 2013, 08:45:55 PM
Post by: csaaphill on February 02, 2013, 09:43:18 PM
Post by: Tman on February 02, 2013, 09:59:24 PM
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.