Corner Crossing latest

[noharleyyet]

 

[gwhunter]

I am absolutely a better public land hunter and advocate for public lands and hunting, because of HT.

To bring it back to corner Crossing, I understand much more about the issue because of your contributions @VikingsGuy, than I would otherwise. I appreciate em.

x2

 

[Elky Welky]

Seems states with enough public land advocates would be better off with ballot initiatives

Getting a ballot initiative off the ground is incredibly hard. Speaking only for how it works in MT (not sure how they do it in other states), it is currently not a viable option. At minimum, just to get the draft, signatures, and word out would cost well over $1 million. And then (again, just in MT), any ballot initiative has to be approved by the attorney general. Our AG has pushed through legally dubious initiatives he agrees with, but has already put a flag in the ground with his views on public land (he’s not a proponent). He’s also slowed the process on other culture war ballot initiatives he doesn’t agree with in such a way that they had to litigate them and they will likely fail to reach the ballot because of his delays.

 

[Sytes]

And then (again, just in MT), any ballot initiative has to be approved by the attorney general.

Wow! I wasn't aware. That's interesting.

 

[Elky Welky]

Wow! I wasn't aware. That's interesting.

Yup, from the secretary of state's website:

"A citizen proposed ballot issue can only appear on the federal general election ballot once the proposed language has fulfilled three requirements. First, the language must be submitted to Montana’s Legislative Services Division. Second, the Montana Attorney General must conduct a legal review. Finally, after the review process is complete, and the sponsor has been notified by the Secretary of State of the approval or rejection of the ballot issue, the sponsor must collect sufficient verified signatures from qualified voters in Montana"

What happened with the culture war issue is the AG delayed the legal review and found some grounds to deny the petition, which the MT supreme court had to step in and say it was wrong, which now doesn't give the proponents enough time to gather signatures.

 

[Rie Bread]

“ legal review”….riiiighhht

 

[Scott85]

Are we ever going to get a decision from the 10th circuit?

 

[manitou1]

The longer they stall, the more $$$ is involved from "vested interests", ie ranchers from surrounding states.

They were supposed to have a decision last August, no?

 

[JLDemo]

Last I saw it was still stalled in the 10th with no update, either way, expect either side to file a petition for writ. So more waiting, which is expected.

 

[Big Fin]

Given the reason I’ve been told for the delays, it is to the benefit of the hunters in that case.

 

[manitou1]

Given the reason I’ve been told for the delays, it is to the benefit of the hunters in that case.

TY.

 

[beaglegun]

it seems to me that the landowner would of been better off If he would have never started this which makes me believe he communicates with a politician or judge . I hope I'm Wrong

 

[manitou1]

I think he has "God Syndrome", ie: I have the money... I get what I want.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This country may have many problems, but Federal Circuit Court decisions are not “paid for”.

 

[brownbear932008]

it seems to me that the landowner would of been better off If he would have never started this which makes me believe he communicates with a politician or judge . I hope I'm Wrong

Doubtful or this favor would have already been called in. Wheels of justice turn slow.

 

[WillF]

It’s important to remember all landowners are not enemies. It seems hunters these days view every land owner/rancher as some rich out of stater. It’s always worth talking to them and asking for access. Some will let you cross to get access to public land. A lot of them will even let you hunt.

 

[Bigjay73]

It’s important to remember all landowners are not enemies. It seems hunters these days view every land owner/rancher as some rich out of stater. It’s always worth talking to them and asking for access. Some will let you cross to get access to public land. A lot of them will even let you hunt.

And if they don't, they've probably been burned by bad hunters

 

[WillF]

And if they don't, they've probably been burned by bad hunters

As a landowner that usually lets people hunt. I can attest that that's very accurate.

 

[WyoDoug]

As a landowner that usually lets people hunt. I can attest that that's very accurate.

And as someone that grew up on a farm, I have witnessed numerous neighbors and my uncle and his dad that stopped letting hunters on their property for things like trash thrown along the roads, gates left open, driving across irrigated fields. My uncle's dad even had a fence torn down where we think someone tried to drag a deer through the barbwire fence. It does not help when bad hunters make it harder for the rest of us.

 

[JAG]

it seems to me that the landowner would of been better off If he would have never started this which makes me believe he communicates with a politician or judge . I hope I'm Wrong

This is the reason why both sides have avoided pursuing this in court for so long. Both sides have very good points and both have great risk to gain or lose.

Big Fin has remarked about his own experience in discussions with legal experts for years but avoided pursuing it because it was too risky and too much was at stake.