Corner crossing case

[RockyMtnMT]

Seems like the tree tops would be the limit???

I don't think I would be very happy with someone flying a drone around my property at tree top hight.

 

[nksmfamjp]

This is a tough conversation, but fairly important.

What we have here is a basic access issue.. I'm not sure how, but it seems like private land always has easements or roads crafted into the deeds before sale. Public land did not. I assume because it was all public then sold off without deeds for the remaining public land. Unfortunately without reasonable land owners every section would require a real battle to set access.

What is crazy is most people imagine this to be a battle often fought close to the road, farmhouse, etc. It is not. Many of these "corners" are miles from the road, unfenced and pretty inaccessible to begin with. Generally only marked by gps. I'm no expert on private land ownership, but I struggle to know how access through remote corners is damaging the concept of private land ownership. I guess I'm poor and small minded. In town, the utilities can knock my fence down and leave an im sorry letter. The police can shoot my house and dog without remorse or payment. The phone company has boxes on my property and nobody will ever have a phone again!

I have no idea what is fair access maybe only corner access limited to 200 ft away from the corner point on foot only or foot and pack animal.

 

[338 dude]

This is a tough conversation, but fairly important.

What we have here is a basic access issue.. I'm not sure how, but it seems like private land always has easements or roads crafted into the deeds before sale. Public land did not. I assume because it was all public then sold off without deeds for the remaining public land. Unfortunately without reasonable land owners every section would require a real battle to set access.

What is crazy is most people imagine this to be a battle often fought close to the road, farmhouse, etc. It is not. Many of these "corners" are miles from the road, unfenced and pretty inaccessible to begin with. Generally only marked by gps. I'm no expert on private land ownership, but I struggle to know how access through remote corners is damaging the concept of private land ownership. I guess I'm poor and small minded. In town, the utilities can knock my fence down and leave an im sorry letter. The police can shoot my house and dog without remorse or payment. The phone company has boxes on my property and nobody will ever have a phone again!

I have no idea what is fair access maybe only corner access limited to 200 ft away from the corner point on foot only or foot and pack animal.

That's another thing that I just don't understand if you have a GPS or onyx on your phone parcels of land where the corners touch are connected no matter how small why is it illegal to step across such an area?

 

[PBramble]

That's another thing that I just don't understand if you have a GPS or onyx on your phone parcels of land where the corners touch are connected no matter how small why is it illegal to step across such an area?

That's exactly the precedent this case just set. It boils down to people gaming the system to their own benefit. The land owners don't want hunters hopscotching the land. It boils down to greed and selfishness. This kind of explains why it happened.

Closing the CheckerboardLand&People - Trust for Public Land

Midway through my five-month summer backpacking trip from Mexico to Canada on the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT), I found myself in a sea of yellow-blossomed mule ears that rustled in the Sierra Nevada breeze. I was near Lake Tahoe, in the northern reaches of John Muir’s “range of...

www.tpl.org

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Another thing that I have seen in a spot that I have hunted quite a bit. A corner crossing that the land owner patrolled and would prosecute anyone that entered the public land. The public land was not fenced so his cattle ran the public land. MT is a free range State, if it is not fenced it is not the land owners responsibility to keep his cows off that land. Free grazing unless the Feds (us) pony up and fence it. I wanted to take it to court back then, but was told I would lose. I remember standing at that corner and listening to the elk bugle on the public land. The Gov tried to do a land swap with him but he would not.

 

[Coldfinger]

That was my point. The gov is owned by the people not the other way around.

Since when?

 

[Coldfinger]

I don't think I would be very happy with someone flying a drone around my property at tree top hight.

I'm not sure where the old thread went, but here is an update. A win in my books.

MSN

The hunters should turn around and sue for whatever they can and have Eshelman held liable for all costs and time to the hunters, localities and courts for wasting the public and private resources in his pathetic lawsuit. It would take more than 4 men on Cat D9 bulldozers to do that dollar amount of damages. Which means he publicly lied to the courts over damages!

 

[RockyMtnMT]

The hunters should turn around and sue for whatever they can and have Eshelman held liable for all costs and time to the hunters, localities and courts for wasting the public and private resources in his pathetic lawsuit. It would take more than 4 men on Cat D9 bulldozers to do that dollar amount of damages. Which means he publicly lied to the courts over damages!

Yes. Tort reform is another subject. All lawsuits should be loser pays. No cost to the winner. This would very quickly clean up the back log of our courts but it will never happen because lawyers write the laws.

 

[manitou]

That was my point. The gov is owned by the people not the other way around.

The government is SUPPOSED to be owned by and serve the citizens of the U.S.

Fixed it for ya...

 

[manitou]

Yes. Tort reform is another subject. All lawsuits should be loser pays. No cost to the winner. This would very quickly clean up the back log of our courts but it will never happen because lawyers write the laws.

And lawyers are future judges.

What a gig!

 

[PBramble]

Another thing that I have seen in a spot that I have hunted quite a bit. A corner crossing that the land owner patrolled and would prosecute anyone that entered the public land. The public land was not fenced so his cattle ran the public land. MT is a free range State, if it is not fenced it is not the land owners responsibility to keep his cows off that land. Free grazing unless the Feds (us) pony up and fence it. I wanted to take it to court back then, but was told I would lose. I remember standing at that corner and listening to the elk bugle on the public land. The Gov tried to do a land swap with him but he would not.

I'm not up on Montana laws, but I can't fathom how he could keep you off public land just because his cattle were there. I'd do some reading up and if he's in the wrong, I'd be sure he saw me and had me arrested. I'd own that herd after the case was settled.

 

[Mike Matteson]

Yes. Tort reform is another subject. All lawsuits should be loser pays. No cost to the winner. This would very quickly clean up the back log of our courts but it will never happen because lawyers write the laws.

Some place that applies in loser pays. The other problem with people is a lot of them are a trash hunters. They'll shoot up everything. Who pays for that? I have also seen where people that own property go into other areas and dig up roads that lead into areas that are open to the public. So it goes both ways. Post signs that aren't correct.
So, I feel for both sides.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I'm not up on Montana laws, but I can't fathom how he could keep you off public land just because his cattle were there. I'd do some reading up and if he's in the wrong, I'd be sure he saw me and had me arrested. I'd own that herd after the case was settled.

His legal right to not allow people on the public land is because of the corner crossing. Nothing to do with the cattle. Because the landlocked public land is not fenced his cattle graze it. I am waiting to see how this ruling effects MT.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Some place that applies in loser pays. The other problem with people is a lot of them a trash hunters. They'll shoot up everything. Who pays for that? I have also seen where people that own property go into other areas and dig up roads that lead into areas that are open to the public. So it goes both ways. Post signs that aren't correct.
So, I feel for both sides.

Yes. My uncle tried to make a system for hunters to use his land. Turned into a **** show. He put a flag on the access gate. Flag up, someone is already in. Flag down, you can hunt. Put the flag up or down on your way in our out. Had people leaving trash, cut his fence, (next to the gate!), And the final straw was a man at his door yelling at his wife demanding that the land was "his" hunting spot and no one else should be allowed to hunt there. After that he just posted the place no hunting.

Unfortunately the few trash hunters ruin it for the rest. I don't blame landowners for not wanting people to hunt. I do have a problem when they try to keep hunters off public land and when they internationally harbor elk herds on their land and do not allow hunting.