Montana corner crossing law hb235

[MontanaRifleman]

Eminent Domain, against Montana's leading and largest industry..

Yeah, that's going to fly. Heck, lets just take all their land and open it to hunting only. Lets take all their guns too. And this coming from the group of people that are against assault weapons ban, fighting to keep our freedoms. But it's ok to take freedoms as long as they are not yours.

Well I think it is time for me to read a different thread for a while.

Jeff

That will never happen here, not for this subject

 

[Broz]

Guys, I have talked with legislator Kelly Flynn about this and he has introduced HB404. It is a step in the right direction and a fair way to resolve some of the problems.

I think line 18 is what needs to be done and a good way to address some of the issues with legal access.

You should look this bill over and get behind it with your efforts if you find it to your liking.

Jeff

Below is a PDF of HB404

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/HB0404.pdf




..

 

[MontanaRifleman]

That does look like a good step in the right direction. I'll support it.

 

[HuntFarther]

Seen this article in the montana standard news paper and thought it would fit with this older thread.





Corner crossing is not taking of private landowner property


http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_3ace7e32-7e20-11e2-ba3f-001a4bcf887a.html
[URL="http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/corner-crossing-is-not-taking-of-private-landowner-property/article_3ace7e32-7e20-11e2-ba3f-001a4bcf887a.html#"]1[/URL]


PrintEmail



2013-02-24T00:00:00ZCorner crossing is not taking of private landowner propertyMontana Standard
23 hours ago
(0) Comments


The Feb. 4 guest editorial by Chuck Denowh on corner crossing presented many inaccuracies.
Corner crossings do not constitute the taking of private property. Denowh mentions Montana ethics on private lands, but was silent on public lands. He mentions a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but it doesn't exist and no case number was mentioned. Nor does it exist in the state statutes. There is also no Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks statute or regulation on corner crossing.
There is, however, a Supreme Court ruling in Camfield v. United States which defines the Unlawful Enclosures Act of 1885 (43 U.S.C. 1061-1064) and the interference of obstructing access from private lands to public lands. The act, which is supreme over state law, states that "free passage of man or animal from place to place on the public domain."
We believe the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court ruling also applies to public access for lawful purposes as defined in the UEA. This ruling involved the Bureau of Land Management and state lands, and the UEA of 1885 needs to be considered in the corner crossing issue today.
Moreover, the federal Taylor Grazing Act reinforces the UEA's mandate that access to public lands be preserved: "Nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict the ingress and regress over public lands for all proper and lawful purposes." (43 CFR U.S.C. 315e.)
Corner crossing does not create a nuisance, injury or economic impact to private property. The corners are public property. The public already has the right to use public land and the UEA forbids the obstruction of access to and on public lands. A private landowner cannot prevent access to and on public land as defined in the UEA for both wild animals and man. We recognize many Montana landowners cooperate fully in the landowner-sportsmen issue.
A recent case near Anaconda involved corner crossing for hunting by local residents on public state lands. After harvesting two bull elk, they were confronted by the Rock Creek Cattle Co. and FWP warden. The warden issued citations and confiscated the elk.
The evidence proved otherwise in court. The hunters used Google Earth and GPS to verify their location and the location of corner markers. The judge dismissed all charges after viewing the evidence. The warden acted without cause and no regulation or statute on corner crossing.
But when did it become illegal to use state land for lawful purposes? The hunters were never compensated for loss of the two bull elk and no formal apology.
The issue of public land access for lawful purposes and enjoyment and the use of public lands, federal and state, will not go away. As public land access becomes more difficult and the value of wildlife increases, the use of corner crossing becomes more important to be pursued in the legal arena and application of the UEA of 1885.
Jack Jones
3014 Irene St.
Butte

 

[HuntFarther]

Question of the week


Here is the question of the week in the montana standard. It is asking if you think crossing corners is trespassing. As of right now 63% say no. Vote if you agree you never know how the poll may be used.

 

[300stw]

very interesting info here, 1st case i have heard of that was thrown out of court,
I wonder what the sponsors of the Bill say about this article,,,,

Seen this article in the montana standard news paper and thought it would fit with this older thread.





Corner crossing is not taking of private landowner property


http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_3ace7e32-7e20-11e2-ba3f-001a4bcf887a.html
[URL="http://mtstandard.com/news/opinion/mailbag/corner-crossing-is-not-taking-of-private-landowner-property/article_3ace7e32-7e20-11e2-ba3f-001a4bcf887a.html#"]1[/URL]


PrintEmail



2013-02-24T00:00:00ZCorner crossing is not taking of private landowner propertyMontana Standard
23 hours ago
(0) Comments


The Feb. 4 guest editorial by Chuck Denowh on corner crossing presented many inaccuracies.
Corner crossings do not constitute the taking of private property. Denowh mentions Montana ethics on private lands, but was silent on public lands. He mentions a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but it doesn't exist and no case number was mentioned. Nor does it exist in the state statutes. There is also no Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks statute or regulation on corner crossing.
There is, however, a Supreme Court ruling in Camfield v. United States which defines the Unlawful Enclosures Act of 1885 (43 U.S.C. 1061-1064) and the interference of obstructing access from private lands to public lands. The act, which is supreme over state law, states that "free passage of man or animal from place to place on the public domain."
We believe the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court ruling also applies to public access for lawful purposes as defined in the UEA. This ruling involved the Bureau of Land Management and state lands, and the UEA of 1885 needs to be considered in the corner crossing issue today.
Moreover, the federal Taylor Grazing Act reinforces the UEA's mandate that access to public lands be preserved: "Nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict the ingress and regress over public lands for all proper and lawful purposes." (43 CFR U.S.C. 315e.)
Corner crossing does not create a nuisance, injury or economic impact to private property. The corners are public property. The public already has the right to use public land and the UEA forbids the obstruction of access to and on public lands. A private landowner cannot prevent access to and on public land as defined in the UEA for both wild animals and man. We recognize many Montana landowners cooperate fully in the landowner-sportsmen issue.
A recent case near Anaconda involved corner crossing for hunting by local residents on public state lands. After harvesting two bull elk, they were confronted by the Rock Creek Cattle Co. and FWP warden. The warden issued citations and confiscated the elk.
The evidence proved otherwise in court. The hunters used Google Earth and GPS to verify their location and the location of corner markers. The judge dismissed all charges after viewing the evidence. The warden acted without cause and no regulation or statute on corner crossing.
But when did it become illegal to use state land for lawful purposes? The hunters were never compensated for loss of the two bull elk and no formal apology.
The issue of public land access for lawful purposes and enjoyment and the use of public lands, federal and state, will not go away. As public land access becomes more difficult and the value of wildlife increases, the use of corner crossing becomes more important to be pursued in the legal arena and application of the UEA of 1885.
Jack Jones
3014 Irene St.
Butte

 

[Broz]

That editorial was written Feb 4th. That was before the last Vote where HB235 was shot down and it didn't change a thing.

The last line of the 5th amendment of our constitution reads.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

If the public is walking on private land, and they will be, it is trespass. I heard the speech of the supporting representative of the bill HB235. She stated in no uncertain terms that what she wanted was to "Decriminalize the Act" of the trespass at the corners. In simple words to make trespass on private land legal.

Plus please don't forget the fact that a large percentage of these corners are not marked. A good GPS will only get you close ( 10' to 20') so the amount of trespass will larger than if they were surveyed. It needs to be surveyed. Then there is the problem of getting game out. How will that be done? By again "jumping in air space" at the exact corner points that are not marked with an elk on your back? The private property owner has every right to prosecute and the majority of them are so upset with what has been tried here, I am betting they will. It was shot down twice in the last few weeks for a reason. First in the committee and then by the legislators when the sponsor tried to blast it out of committee.

This is no different than if you owned a lot in town and someone told you you had to let the public cross the corner of your private property to get to a park or something. If they are walking on your private land it is indeed a "take"

There are better bills in progress now. HB404 has made it through one vote and is going forward. Driving wedges between private land owners and sportsmen and women is never good. That is what HB235 was doing. If the private property owners start taking land from the Block Management programs like they did with the brain storm HB161 more public access property will be lost and even more of the landlocked public lands will be unaccessible. There are many areas of public land that is accessed through Block Management land. HB404 will increase this and all will be happy. HB235 is wrong and only sets things up for trouble and law suits.

Jeff

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Agree with Jeff. Corner jumping is not the way to solve the problem. It is a PITA for both sides of the subject and will only lead to hard feelings. We need to work for better solutions on a case by case basis. It will take time but it will be worth it in the end.

 

[HuntFarther]

I am fine with how it is. But I do think the way our hunting is going and ranches are selling off the rights for hunting for profit will reach a changing point. More public lands should have more grazing restrictions on them. Public lands need to be made sure there is adequate feed on them for wildlife to survive without having to go to ranchers hayfields to live. Livestock should not be on them during hunting seasons. I also think a deciding factor should be if the corners of question are used and drove on by a rancher at anytime during the year. It should be a public land that we could cross corners on. I really think the days of not ****ing off the rancher and kiss butts is over. And that it will soon be times of them locking up their ranches for private gain while locking us off of public lands reach a turning point. I think the ranchers will start seeing a pinch on restrictions of length of time they graze public lands. And also on state lands I think they will be restricted to foot or horse back travel as well. I have seen many times where ranchers are hunting state land but "checking water tanks". This is the main reason I pack a camera to document this stuff. Might not be nothing now but at some point it becomes a lot of ammunition.

 

[Broz]

. I also think a deciding factor should be if the corners of question are used and drove on by a rancher at anytime during the year. It should be a public land that we could cross corners on..

With this in mind we should remember a few things. Two of the four corners are owned by the private property owners. The other two he can be on ( legal use of foot , horse or what ever is legal) so the corner location is irrelevant to the private property owner. He is part of the public too and can legally be on all of it because his private property allows legal access.

As far as driving on it, that should be done in a legal manner and there are laws for this already. If you see anyone breaking the laws you should prosecute.

As far as servicing water tanks. Lets not forget he pays around $16 per pair per month for the lease to graze. If their is 300 pair that equals $4800 per month. That is paid whether he uses it or not in the grazing season that the state, BLM or whoever sets forth and he can be fined if he does not comply with the dates. He is also told how many head he can run and by the authorities and that is what he pays even if his herd is down in count.

The property owner pays for all of his use of any public lands. But HB235 states he should just give up the use of his private property for free. How does that compute?

Jeff

 

[HuntFarther]

I am not saying that the rancher is not paying to use this ground. I just think that things should become more regulated in favor of the majority and not minority.

Such as wildlife can survive off any public lands and not have to rely on hayfields. Which means adequate feed left on public lands for them to survive if the wish to live there. If the law states "no motorized travel" then that means none. If there is a reason for traveling to go repair "water tanks" a permit should need to be picked up for day use.

I also was told by a rancher we could not hunt state land by winnette because he has cattle on there. This needs to be clarified, and hunters are also leasing that ground from about atleast september 1st to the 1st of december. We expect not to be harassed while using our ground at that time.

The corner crossing will have to be dealt with. Just the fact that one judge threw a case out was great in my eyes. And then the fact that ranchers are still allowed to drive on state lands is a black eye for them, I know of ranchers that hunt state lands while checking water tanks. I was told straight up from them. I know the same happens when family kills something out there, they happen to be driving by and retrieve game as well.

I agree with you broz it might not be the answer. But is just the begining of the check and balances that need to take place.

 

[Broz]

I hear what you are saying. I am not opposed to public use of public land, I hunt too. But the method of access needs to be fair to both. Also I see both sides of this as well. I have used the private access I work on to retrieve many wounded animals that were shot on public lands that border the private ranch. 3 deer and two elk this past season. If they call before they trespass I help them, all we ask is do it lawfully and stay off the private. Call first if you have a need to go on private, we will help you. One bull this year was in the bottom of a deep ditch now on private land. I winched it out with my truck, loaded it in my truck and hauled the two hunters and their bull right to their truck where we slid it in the back. Saved them a days work. It would have been much easier if I would have drove on the public land, but I didn't. I used our private land only. We also gave the go ahead to get out a hunter with a broken ankle, we were glad to and so should every other private property owner in an emergency. My point is, there is going to be many instances where wounded game make it on to the private land from public where it was shot. Hunter / Landowner relations are very important here. The land owner that is upset does not have to allow retrieval of game that comes to rest on private. Nor does he have to allow the following of a blood trail onto his private ground. But if you ask first most will.

Jeff

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I am fine with how it is. But I do think the way our hunting is going and ranches are selling off the rights for hunting for profit will reach a changing point. More public lands should have more grazing restrictions on them. Public lands need to be made sure there is adequate feed on them for wildlife to survive without having to go to ranchers hayfields to live. Livestock should not be on them during hunting seasons. I also think a deciding factor should be if the corners of question are used and drove on by a rancher at anytime during the year. It should be a public land that we could cross corners on. I really think the days of not ****ing off the rancher and kiss butts is over. And that it will soon be times of them locking up their ranches for private gain while locking us off of public lands reach a turning point. I think the ranchers will start seeing a pinch on restrictions of length of time they graze public lands. And also on state lands I think they will be restricted to foot or horse back travel as well. I have seen many times where ranchers are hunting state land but "checking water tanks". This is the main reason I pack a camera to document this stuff. Might not be nothing now but at some point it becomes a lot of ammunition.

Something to keep in mind is that ranchers and farmers open up about 8,000,000 acres of land through block management. The land being sought through corner crossing is about 800,000 about 1/10th of block management land. Much of that 800,000 acres is unaccessable via corners because of natural physical obstructions. And a lot of otherwise landlocked public land is also currently opened up through block management. Hope you're getting the picture here. Telling the ranchers and farmers to stick it will not be beneficial I assure you. Most of my business is with farmers and ranchers and the overwhelming majority of them are real descent folks. They've also got their issues with slob hunters, etc.

I also have had the frustration of a rancher turning loose his herd into USFS public grazing land a few days before the general season started. Took leave from work, drove 5 hours with my buddies to a spot that I scouted during archery, and found all the elk had been chased out by the cows. Pretty much blew the entire costly trip. So I agree, something needs to be worked out there. And I also agree, that if landowners are profiting from elk, deer, etc., they should be required to open up a pertcentage of their land for hunting so Montana residents can share the resource. Too many residents sucking hind tit to out-of-staters paying for the prime hunting. i.e., $15,000 per bull hunt (not even guaranteed) on Turner's ranchers, who has a whole lot of public land tied up and profiting off of it. He isn't even a resident. Something definitely not right there.

Bottom line is that these issues all need to be worked out with some thought and the best possible outcome for everyone involved and corner jumping ain't it. I would much rather have easy access to public land than to have to hop a corner at a time and try to heave my game back over the corners and be on good terms with the locals. It just makes life a whole lot easier and enjoyable.

 

[HuntFarther]

I lived both sides of the fence as well. But it just seems to me there are more cases of the rancher not allowing any retrieval on wounded game. I know down by clark canyon we were hunting elk. Tried really hard to shoot this one big 6 with a club and freak points on the other side. My brother stuck him about 250 yards on public. He went down and died in the open on private. Drove to and asked the rancher and he said we had to ask the outfitter. Only to find out it was the same bull they wanted. And the answer was no, you cant retrieve him. Contacted the game warden he talked with the guy and the answer was still no. Went back later the head was gone and the game warden did not have him. Nor was it investigated either.