Montana corner crossing law hb235

[300stw]

is there a point in time that all public land should be accesible by all, is the notion that a select few should enjoy landlocked public land and the rest of the public that is paying for there access stamps and taxes have no right to use the land, where is the middle ground, should we give this land to the landowners so its not landlocked, what will the public get in return,,, how many acres of current block management land are pretty poor as far as wildlife habitat and game quantity, there has been a lot of quality ground taken out of block management that is for sure,
surely the public should get to use there public ground or lets not have any person use it,,,, i am tired of seeing landowners using public ground for their benefit while us sportsmen are left out,,,,i have family in the cow buisness and they are making profits they never have made, they have blm and forest land leases,,,if the rancers are not making a profit they wouldnt be paying the small amount they pay per aum right now,,,,
how has the aum rate kept up with inflation,

the landowners letting sportsmen in or across for wounded game has been pretty poor in many instances i have seen,,,,
i have a lot of state lnd close to home that is accesible on foot but i cant use my horses on it because there are no acces gates the rancher has taken them all out and places the gates where the private meets state, thus eliminating horseback use,

i have pics, filed complaints at the state lands, nothing gets done,
during archery season there are a few 180 class mule deer in these places,, every single hunt i have been on, as well as a few other locals, the rancher has been checking water, sighting in his rifle, or checking cows,, this year he sold all of his cows, has no livestock at all, so why all the problems, money from rich people paying for access is driving these problems,,,,

the non use of public land by me, the public, while a landowner does any thing they want, interrupts anyones public right of use needs to change,,,
i realize bad experiences on either part leads to bad opinions being informed,

we as sportsmen sure need our rights and out land looked at and protected more now that ever,,,
maybe the public should just decide to sell these landlocked parcels to the adjacent owners, but sell them at the going real estate prices , then the public money could be used to to purchase parcels that can be utilized by all,

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

 

[Broz]

maybe the public should just decide to sell these landlocked parcels to the adjacent owners, but sell them at the going real estate prices , then the public money could be used to to purchase parcels that can be utilized by all,

This is a viable option, get a few appraisals and offer it for sale to ajoining owners and buy accessible land, maybe even buy some land to get to other landlocked parcels, or trade for accessible land of equal value. If 600 acres are locked in 2 different parcels trade one for the land that allows access to the other.

Buy the way... HB404 that Kelly Flynn has proposed and is through the first vote, allocates funds for just this very thing. A win win option.

Jeff

 

[HuntFarther]

Montana riflemen.

I hear alot of what you say but I really disagree with the fact that limited people can hunt the block management. There is so much land that is enrolled and maybe 5 people get to hunt it a year. Why can't block management be more like state lands. You have your license you can go, not if you know someone you can go. There are places over by twin bridges on giems where one party can hunt one side of the road one day and another the next. But you can sign up for the season if you want it. In this case you should be allowed one access permit a seson or something. Or just if it enrolls in block then anyone can hunt.

 

[cowboy]

Buy the way... HB404 that Kelly Flynn has proposed and is through the first vote, allocates funds for just this very thing. A win win option.

Jeff

You are not going to see a lot of backing by sportman on HB404. Here is just one version on where the funds for HB404 will come from and what effects it may/would have.

Montana HB 404 Attack on Habitat Montana

Land owners may support this approach, more money in their pockets, but the other side is why are we taking funds from an already successful program, putting it in jeopody, and paying for access to property where the corner crossing legality has not been determined. It may/may not be a long term solution due to the costs involved. My bet is a lot of land owners would not consider financial incentives anyway - why would they want to. I would not if I was involved.

Bottom line is this is a mess and only the supreme court will decide what is constitutional.

There is no one in support of private landowners rights more than me - but I also recognize the public's rights to access public land.

 

[Broz]

You are not going to see a lot of backing by sportman on HB404. .

Actually you are the first I have heard oppose it. All the hunters I have talked with are for it. I guess there is no pleasing everyone. We will just have to see how the bill goes. I feel it has a way better chance than the voted down corner jumping bill did. I look at HB404 as a step in the right direction and something that could actually happen.

By the way you might find interest in reading the actual Bill. The funds are not just for Block Management. It is for access as well as other things.

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

Jeff

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Montana riflemen.

I hear alot of what you say but I really disagree with the fact that limited people can hunt the block management. There is so much land that is enrolled and maybe 5 people get to hunt it a year. Why can't block management be more like state lands. You have your license you can go, not if you know someone you can go. There are places over by twin bridges on giems where one party can hunt one side of the road one day and another the next. But you can sign up for the season if you want it. In this case you should be allowed one access permit a seson or something. Or just if it enrolls in block then anyone can hunt.

If some people are shown favoritism over others then that is BS and I would report it. But I don't mind controlled access at all. I like the idea of one party per area per day or half day. It keeps it form getting over hunted and chasing the game out and a lot less headaches competing with other hunters in the same space... as long as access is fair. I used to hunt the IX ranch up by Big Sandy which has a lot of block management land. Some areas were managed different than others but my favorite area worked like you called ahead and they tentatively scheduled you in. You checked in @ 0 dark thirty and good to go for the day and you had 5 or 6 sections for you and your party of some good deer country. That was when I lived in GF. I still go up there now and then. Most other BM land seems to be just sign in at the box where you park. Usually not too crowded but you never knew who was coming in behind you and usually not much game.

 

[HuntFarther]

I have seen all the sides on this as well. But have seen alot of stuff where in a hunting seasons time you cannot gain access. What is the point of this. I would think that instead of funding bmu that everyone does not have a chance atto hunt is more pointless. In this case what will come before long. You have to apply to get permission long before hunting season?

I really just wish the public has a voice on what units to buy or not. Another bmu that I seen down by coalstrip you cannot hunt the state land that has 100% no question asked access to it. The legal accessable state land has been enrolled into the block management units. Or in white sulphr springs there is a bmu that is a nice one but, has one or two spots that you cannot walk onto state lands from it. And I am talking borders for like half a mile not a corner. Now why would the state block management allow this to happen?

 

[cowboy]

Actually you are the first I have heard oppose it. All the hunters I have talked with are for it.

By the way you might find interest in reading the actual Bill. The funds are not just for Block Management. It is for access as well as other things.

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

Jeff

Jeff:
Don't read something into a person's comments that are not there, and I know what the funds for HB404 are intended for. This bill may try to solve the corner crossing bill but it's where the money is coming from that I have the concern with. Taking money out of the Habitat Montana fund to pay for corner crossing, block management and access "to me" is like Washington reducing social security and medicare to fund our national defense.

HB404 is getting the money to do this by tapping into the Habitat Montana Fund which is funded by sportsman's dollars for habitat protection and acquisition. The FWP are already pressed for funds and now this bill will stretch their budget even further. HB404 isn't using any new money - they are reallocating money that was intended for other purposes. This bill needs to stand on its own as far as procuring money, either that or all other areas in FWP are going to suffer.

There are many sportsman in this State that are well aware of the financial conditions facing our FWP and they are very concerned over this robbing Peter to pay Paul bill. If a person doesn't give a hoot about habitat protection or acquisition in the future than this bill may show some promise. If not then HB404 needs to come up with their own source of revenue.

I have read the bill - and I don't like the money source.

Here is another take on HB404 - I could give you many more.

GOP "solves" corner-crossing question, by reducing funds for wildlife habitat | Indy Blog

 

[Broz]

If a person doesn't give a hoot about habitat protection or acquisition in the future than this bill may show some promise.

I understand but you did realize the funding from habitat was only for 2 years didn't you? Just pointing this out as I felt it is important. So when we talk about the future of a long term program I didn't feel 2 years was that long. And I am sure Kelly Flynn has done some budgeting, I feel he is doing a pretty good job for us. I am sure you will be able to find many articles where most of the Dem's are against anything the Rep's come up with. The Dem's are the ones pushing for the taking of private property without just compensation. Much like many of us believe will happen with our guns. I say we keep and protect our constitution, our guns and choice of religion just the way it has been for years.

So, we know the FWP is low on funds. I feel this is greatly the result of the big HB161 that was going to give so much to block management and open up so many acres to hunt. But it has gone the opposite direction. Maybe they need to overturn that bill and put non res tag prices back to where they were?

I am being serious when I ask you where you would get the funds to start repair of the locked up land problem?

Or are we just back to the "we have no money and this needs fixed so lets just take the private property owners land and use it even if they object, we can just pass HB235 and make trespassing a noncriminal act?"

Jeff

 

[Tikkamike]

in wyoming all sections have (or should have) steel markers in each corner, and a lot of public/private transitions happen on section lines so if there is a steel marker you have 0 chance of trespassing... i personally dont think it should even be an issue. if you are afraid of someone putting a foot inside your propertyline then fence it off... Around here there is one land owner in particular who likes to extend is fences and locked gates onto public land to discourage hunters. This has worked out well for me because he has tried to stop me from being on these public places and I have had to bust out the map, compass and gps to show him im on to his BS

 

[MontanaRifleman]

in wyoming all sections have (or should have) steel markers in each corner, and a lot of public/private transitions happen on section lines so if there is a steel marker you have 0 chance of trespassing... i personally dont think it should even be an issue. if you are afraid of someone putting a foot inside your propertyline then fence it off... Around here there is one land owner in particular who likes to extend is fences and locked gates onto public land to discourage hunters. This has worked out well for me because he has tried to stop me from being on these public places and I have had to bust out the map, compass and gps to show him im on to his BS

Corner jumping is just not a good solution at all for a lot of reasons. We need to rearrange land through swapping and sales and purchases, bottom line.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I understand but you did realize the funding from habitat was only for 2 years didn't you? Just pointing this out as I felt it is important. So when we talk about the future of a long term program I didn't feel 2 years was that long. And I am sure Kelly Flynn has done some budgeting, I feel he is doing a pretty good job for us. I am sure you will be able to find many articles where most of the Dem's are against anything the Rep's come up with. The Dem's are the ones pushing for the taking of private property without just compensation. Much like many of us believe will happen with our guns. I say we keep and protect our constitution, our guns and choice of religion just the way it has been for years.

So, we know the FWP is low on funds. I feel this is greatly the result of the big HB161 that was going to give so much to block management and open up so many acres to hunt. But it has gone the opposite direction. Maybe they need to overturn that bill and put non res tag prices back to where they were?

I am being serious when I ask you where you would get the funds to start repair of the locked up land problem?

Or are we just back to the "we have no money and this needs fixed so lets just take the private property owners land and use it even if they object, we can just pass HB235 and make trespassing a noncriminal act?"

Jeff

Jeff, maybe I'm missing something but if there were land swaps and sales and purchases, it should all work out fairly even $$$ wise, shouldn't it?

And I agree that 25% for 2 years shouldn't be that big of deal. That said, I think access via BM land is the least desirable solution because cooperation is voluntary on the part of the land owner who could decide not to participate and we are back to square one.

I think the best solutions are sales and purchase exchanges, swaps, and permanent easement purchases.

Also, I know a few sections of state land that are not good for hunting because they are grain fields, etc., and hold no meaningful game. IMO, the landowner/lessee should be required to purchase those sections as he is the only one who uses and benefits from them. The money from these sales could be used to purchase other lands that offer quality hunting and game habitat.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Tikkamike]

Well the area I live in Land owners typically own farm ground... swapping land isnt an option for these people. Might be an option for a guy who owns land on the mountain or something. But that is definitley not the best solution... there is nothing wrong with corner jumping and the land owners need to get over it

 

[Broz]

Well the area I live in Land owners typically own farm ground... swapping land isnt an option for these people. Might be an option for a guy who owns land on the mountain or something. But that is definitley not the best solution... there is nothing wrong with corner jumping and the land owners need to get over it

So Mike if they wanted to make a walk way across the corner of your back yard to access a lot with no access you would be ok with them using that corner of your private property for a traffic point?

Visualize an , x , you own the left and right corners. They need x amount of feet left and right each direction of your private property. You should just let them use it or give it to them?

Jeff