Corner Crossing: A Solution

[Nameless Range]

This is another thread prompted by the most recent Hunt Talk podcast. In that podcast, Randy did not sound hopeful that the issue of Corner Crossing would be resolved cleanly. I agree. I have been hearing about corner crossing all of my adult life, and I would be willing to bet that 15 years from now little progress will have been made on corner crossing if the status quo of hoping someone will just legalize it continues. This would not resolve the civil trespass issues anyway.

So I am proposing a way to work through the corner crossing issue. Maybe this is a bad idea because it would legitimize anti-corner-crossing folks’ positions, like asking for permission when it is unneeded. I think this issue is complicated, and is not as black and white as we wish it were, so here is a possible way forward:

Analysis:

Using GIS, a spatial analysis can be done to identify all inaccessible public lands (for hunting). Those would be parcels that:

• Do not intersect a navigable stream
• Do not intersect a public road
• Do not share a line segment with already accessible lands

Next, using that inaccessible lands dataset, on a parcel by parcel basis, all lines could be converted to vertices. By identifying distinct parcels that have only one vertex identical to another on a separate parcel in the accessible lands dataset, one could identify parcels that would become accessible through their corners.

From this list of corners, we could rank them in terms of how much access they could provide in terms of acres, if it were possible to gain access through them.

 

[Nameless Range]

How Access Could Work

Directly adjacent to a corner, access easements could be purchased. These easements would be very small, but very valuable. A footprint of something like 10 x 15 feet. They would be surveyed and formalized. Access would be controlled through the use of access stiles, which would be the only legal way to utilize the easement:





There would be advantages to this way of gaining corner access, as many possibilities for the win would be present. In the example below, 3 landowners are present. Only one would need to sell the easement for the access to be gained, and for every corner there are two possible easements.

 

[Nameless Range]

POSSIBILITIES

It is true that most corners would grant 640 acres of new access, but using the list created in our analysis, we could find corners that are more valuable. Example below:



Here, we only need Bob Johnson or Bill Wilson to sell the easement, and 1,167 acres of new access could be gained.



There are other places where I believe incredible access could be gained.

 

[Nameless Range]

CHALLENGES

My analysis here is rough and is just a few examples. To create a comprehensive and accurate list, one would need accurate datasets for rivers and roads that already provide access to public lands. Additionally, I concede it may be very difficult to get any landowners to sell easements, but there are literally thousands of possibilities for this type of easement access being purchased for inaccessible lands in Montana. I’d like to think some successes could be found.

Any criticism is fair and I'd be interested in thoughts.

 

[Schaaf]

I think you're right that this is where it will eventually lead.

I'd like to see a ballot initiative on the issue.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Specifics aside, it's good to see corner crossing discussions moving from legal squabble to practical solution. Between PL trust folks buying easements and states using eminent domain takings (with compensation) of easements I am guessing a lot of the most desirable "land locked" private lands could become accessible in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable amount of money (in the big picture).

FWIW- I would not use navigable waterways as an exception - taking a boat or canoe into hunt elk is not a great option in my personal opinion.

 

[JMG]

Good thought(s). It certainly has potential.

 

[el unit]

Nice to see possible solutions. Good thinking, Nameless Range.

 

[onpoint]

……...
FWIW- I would not use navigable waterways as an exception - taking a boat or canoe into hunt elk is not a great option in my personal opinion.

Unless I'm missing something here - I could either incredulously ask "WTF"?, or selfishly comment "yes, it's a horrible method"....

 

[----]

I'd like to see a ballot initiative on the issue.

To try to legalize corner crossing?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Good stuff Bret.

MT currently has a lease program that is still in it's infancy that would fill this niche. It has no dedicated funding to date, but does have some good potential to fullfill this role: http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/mt-plan

 

[Schaaf]

To try to legalize corner crossing?

Yep. UPOM would shit a brick.

 

[onpoint]

An interesting use for the much maligned ballot initiative. This is not wildlife management issue - which most have heartburn over when in comes to initiatives. An interesting discussion (for the purpose of legalizing corner crossing) on it's own.....

 

[Straight Arrow]

Thank-you for your analysis and obviously long-considered solution to a longstanding complex issue. 'Hope this does not offend you. However, simply put that's a helluva lot of easements and likely in a disjointed inconsistent array ... with the respective large amount of kaching-kaching $$$ coming from where? Easements' administration, stiles, maintenance of stiles, lack of stiles due to no fencing, and a myriad of other ongoing concerns result in an enormous and inconsistent complexity.

During this era when USFS and BLM cannot even field a viable noxious weed mitigation program, is a stiles' access program realistic?

I do agree a clean solution to the issue is unlikely, yet my personal support would be for a legal resolution, one that would apply consistently across-the-board to each and every "corner crossing" point for public access to public land. Whether that would result from litigation evolving up through the highest levels of the judicial system or by Congress tackling the issue, it's not apt to be an easy process. But for whatever it's worth ... that's my take on such an easement stiles' solution.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thank-you for your analysis and obviously long-considered solution to a longstanding complex issue. 'Hope this does not offend you. However, simply put that's a helluva lot of easements and likely in a disjointed inconsistent array ... with the respective large amount of kaching-kaching $$$ coming from where? Easements' administration, stiles, maintenance of stiles, lack of stiles due to no fencing, and a myriad of other ongoing concerns result in an enormous and inconsistent complexity.

During this era when USFS and BLM cannot even field a viable noxious weed mitigation program, is a stiles' access program realistic?

I do agree a clean solution to the issue is unlikely, yet my personal support would be for a legal resolution, one that would apply consistently across-the-board to each and every "corner crossing" point for public access to public land. Whether that would result from litigation evolving up through the highest levels of the judicial system or by Congress tackling the issue, it's not apt to be an easy process. But for whatever it's worth ... that's my take on such an easement stiles' solution.

No offense taken. Thank you for the comment. If I were king for a day I would make all corner crossing legal, and eliminate the possibility for civil charges.

I agree this solution would not be comprehensive, and most inaccessible parcels would remain that way. That said, as I type this, all that are inaccessible will continue to be so under the status quo.

I couldn't find a picture of a stile like I was thinking, but I was imagining something plastic and with rails, much like playground equipment. It would be bolted to the ground, and would theoretically last longer than the fences it spanned.

Maybe I am wrong, but an across the board legal solution, like a ballot initiative, would still not resolve the civil trespass issues. Correct?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I love the GIS analysis.

Couple thoughts

1. River access, could be a solution for Montana but many other western states don't have stream access laws, and hiking up a river doesn't count even in Montana so travel would have to be one way and you would need close river access points. In my mind if you have to do a 10 mile float to hit the corner of a parcel that you then have to walk 6 miles across to get to a easement that then lets you get onto a chunk of land that makes access legal but prohibitively difficult. Generally speaking I would toss out rivers as access points for a global analysis, I think they work as access points only in very specific instances. Here is an example of a huge piece of public land that is legally accessible but only on foot and from only one point. Is this land really accessible for public use if you have to hike ~17 miles, not to mention you are competing with people in vehicles who are accessing the public by private roads on adjacent parcels?



2. Legal roads, public roads aren't set in stone. Sometimes counties decide they don't want to maintain a road and then it becomes private, what happens then? There are lots of issues with people gating public roads?

3. Do we want to cede the idea that corner crossing is illegal and that we need easements? Right now it's a bit of a gray area, and it seems it might be more advantageous to the public to argue that it's legal to corner cross.

4. Along with point 3, what if there was a pseudo eminent domain and or land swap that created a 3 ft easement at every corner statewide? Maybe you do a mandatory swap at each corner, red in example goes to fed or state, green goes to land owner (blue is public land)


Generally speaking I think this is a great method of identifying access points if and when we, public land owners, decide it's the only option we have left. Land access is a really hairy problem and I think that a large scale solution might better serve everyone.

 

[jtm307]

In WY, merely stepping over a corner is a lot easier than any of these solutions. There is nothing in WY statute that prohibits corner crossing. There is no precedent either. The "airspace ownership" arguments that are frequently made don't apply because I have contact with public land and only public land at all times. The BLM Access Guide is not an authoritative source for determining the legality of corner crossing.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Maybe I am wrong, but an across the board legal solution, like a ballot initiative, would still not resolve the civil trespass issues. Correct?

States vary on what type of matter is subject to ballot initiative (statute, const amend, etc), but assuming a state provide for statute by ballot initiative an initiative could state that, "Trespass, civil or criminal, shall not include the act of . . . . and no liability or punishment shall result therefrom"

 

[VikingsGuy]

.
2. Legal roads, public roads aren't set in stone. Sometimes counties decide they don't want to maintain a road and then it becomes private, what happens then? There are lots of issues with people gating public roads?

That could be handling by clarifying (in statute) that failure to maintain a public road does not extinguish the underlying public easement.

 

[Nameless Range]

Good comments Wllm1313.

jtm307, you're right that if you already have access by just stepping over a corner, that is a far better way to move forward than this.