Corner Crossing - Where to go from here?

[Elkmagnet]

Not to play on this but I thought Montana already had grand traditions that they need to keep in order to keep more wildlife from dying than already is. I mean if this is going to open more land to more hunters wont that negatively affect the elk populations. Meaning less tags and less hunting down the road. Say just like a lighted nock and a crossbow would? For the record I do think this would be a great opportunity for sportsman if passed

Me thinks 12 representatives know someone who is hunting blocks like this- or are charging fees to do so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm not going anywhere near this discussion on a hunting forum. I have tried my hardest to stay away from party lines on sportmans issues.

Many of us here in Montana have previously taken that attitude, but no more. As someone who has religiously voted for fifty years, I have consistently voted as a Republican up until a few legislative sessions ago. The Republican party in Montana consistenty, continuously is stuffing the sportsman, hunter, angler under the proverbial bus. Even when Republican legislators look you in the eye and assure you they will vote a certain way to protect sportsmen interests ... once they get the word from the party caucus, that's the way they vote. Often they tell you it's complicated and you just don't understand ... but unfortunately you likely know more about the issue than they do. All I can say is that it is dispicable partisan politics and it makes me sick. I call myself a moderate independent, but I have not found a candidate for political office who really represents me for a long time.

 

[Bowhuntrben]

Very nice Randy..thanks for sharing

 

[RobG]

How about a Citizen's Initiative?

 

[shoots-straight]

How about a Citizen's Initiative?

That's a definite possibility. This would be the preferred channels IMO.

With the ball now rolling ahead, I think we could move forward from here in a very positive way.

 

[shoots-straight]

Once again, the GOP is NOT the party for the average sportsman!

The GOP dominate politics in the Western Valleys, other than Missoula. Makes you wonder how that's happened to the degree it has. We have always been red, but they were way more moderate. It's "Bat Crap Crazy" in the Root.

 

[ingomar]

We have been on the phone with Rep. Hill who sponsored the corner crossing bill. She is going to attempt to blast this bill out of committee on Feb. 18th. This date was chosen because it is a holiday, President's Day, and offered the best chance to get people to the capital without having to take a day off.

There is a rally planned on the Capital steps from 10-11 am on the morning of the 18th, complete with members of the press, TV stations and cameras. Randy is going to be there with his camera crew as well. While the public cannot testify before the House that day, we can fill the gallery in a show of support. We can hopefully create enough pressure to make the a majority of the House members, from both sides of the aisle, support HB 235.

We also need as many Republican Representatives as possible to stand up in support of blasting this out of committee. Contact all those who represent your district and ask them to support Rep. Hill.

WE MUST HAVE SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE TO SHOW UP ON FEB. 18TH!!!

The ball is in our court. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Spread this information far and wide.

 

[cowboy]

We have been on the phone with Rep. Hill who sponsored the corner crossing bill. She is going to attempt to blast this bill out of committee on Feb. 18th.

The ball is in our court. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Spread this information far and wide.

Ingomar: what does it take for Hill "to blast" this out of committee or in simple terms how is this done now that it has been voted down? Thanks in advance for those of us that don't understand the complete process or political maneuvering.

PS: Kearns will never touch another animal of mine - vets should have more common sense than pull what he did.

 

[whiskeydog]

i think a "blast" motion requires 60 votes out of the possible 100 in order to advance.

 

[drahthaar]

This is shameful. I considered this bill kind of a "litmus test" for these stupid fricking guys that get there rear-ends voted in by hunters, overwhelmingly in this state. If this isn't enough to get some people's attention next time they enter a voting booth, then nothing will be.
I hope all the people I know that just go vote for the big "R", are paying attention. Slap in the face. Blasdel and Regier!!! Pitiful!!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good luck on the 18th guys and I hope you can swamp the Capitol that morning. This is a huge Bill that could open up millions of acres of public land. I sure wish I could be out there to help on this one, but about all I can do from here is to keep emailing all your legislators.

 

[sweetnectar]

The state republicans I know tend to never leave private land ownership rights unprotected. IE. if you earned your money you should keep it. If it is your property you paid for it, we'll keep government from taking it. So I have to ask myself what is being taken from someones property that would cause a no vote from these republicans? Do you guys have any ideas? I mean think critically and see what the concerns are over, come up with solutions, and everyone would vote for it.

Would some one's land value be lessened from this bill?
Would someones private land be stepped on (like a stupid square foot)? Seem silly to get bent out of shape on...
Would a private land owner not be allowed to put up a fence on a corner of this checkerboard or his or her fence damaged?
Any other ideas?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

The reason is pretty simple IMO. The people these legislator voting no are "beholden" to are able to use this landlocked public land for themselves and they don't want anyone else getting in on their personal hunting grounds by opening it up with corner jumping. I really think it's as simple as that---greed!!!

 

[mtmuley]

Scared of the reaction from some of the wealthier landowners in this state perhaps? mtmuley

 

[sweetnectar]

Scared of the reaction from some of the wealthier landowners in this state perhaps? mtmuley

Can't think of a solution to that one....perhaps campaign finance laws?

The reason is pretty simple IMO. The people these legislator voting no are "beholden" to are able to use this landlocked public land for themselves and they don't want anyone else getting in on their personal hunting grounds by opening it up with corner jumping. I really think it's as simple as that---greed!!!

Got me thinking. Would you pay more for a chunk of land if it gave you exclusive hunting rights from a land locked public parcel? If so. Would you pay less if a corner rule was in place making it so you fairly shared the public parcel? Because when you look at land for sale one of the selling features is usually "boarders National forest." In other words your private land value is more because with it you get sole access to the publics land. Definitely greed driven....reminds me of Eddie Vedder's Society
http://youtu.be/Cy6iwP9Ux3A

 

[shoots-straight]

The boys from the Root are planning a bus trip. You would think that sportsman would come out of the woodwork for this. We will see.

Maybe some banners and Tee's with slogans on the front.

Any ideas?

Should rhyme with SR 235, the access bill, corner hop bill, capital hill,

Maybe just simply " Blast SR 235".

I hope this will be our HB 309 bill that galvanized the sportsman in the last session.

 

[Big Fin]

So I have to ask myself what is being taken from someones property that would cause a no vote from these republicans? Do you guys have any ideas? I mean think critically and see what the concerns are over, come up with solutions, and everyone would vote for it.

Nothing is being taken from someone's property. They would now be required to allow the public to access the public property that the private landowner has enjoyed the benefit of for years.

I have thought about it critically. For years. I can see nothing that is being taken from a landowner that was his. He does not own the public lands, but has had dominion and control over those lands, even though they were not his.

I have asked many landowners why it is legally a problem. None ever have a good answer. It is usually some long tangled explanation that ends with something like "It's just not a good idea." For who?

If there was a good legal property right answer, I would like to hear it. I always defend property rights. Seems some fail to realize that where recognize where one right starts and another right ends, even if it is a public property right.

This is not a "takings," but a change. Sometimes change is hard to accept. I would not overthink it. It is natural for people to resist change, especially when change might impact the way they have viewed the public property they have had control over for decades.

Legislators do have a track record of creating property rights where none exist. Usually at the expense of public rights. This is not a case of legislators creating property rights where none exist, rather refusing to allow the public to enjoy/access a public property right where a public property right exists.

Would some one's land value be lessened from this bill?

Some will make that claim, as their exclusive use of public lands might be impacted. That is not a right or asset attributed to their deeded lands, rather a value attributable to the public land they current have control over.

The technical answer is "No." Some will say it impacts their cash flow. The courts would hold, and argue, that their past cash flow history was increased by their past ability to keep the public from enjoying their property rights. Since the change in cash flow is attributable to the public property right, not the private property right, it is not a takings.

Any legislator who claims this is a takings does not know what a takings is, and needs to go read the case law related to the 5th Amendment.

Imagine this. I have been using my neighbors land for years. Finally, he says he wants to hay the pasture, not me. He has the legal right to do so. Can I sue my neighbor for a takings, when the property/right he "took" was his to begin with? Hardly. That is the same logic that applies when a landowner makes a takings claim for the public wanting to use public land that the public has always owned, even if the landowner enjoyed use of it in the past.

Would someones private land be stepped on (like a stupid square foot)? Seem silly to get bent out of shape on...

No private land should be stepped on, if people did it properly. The way the law is drafted, it is not to grant people the right to step on someone's private land, but to clarify that if someone steps from corner to corner and stays on public land, such activity will not be trespassing.

Would a private land owner not be allowed to put up a fence on a corner of this checkerboard or his or her fence damaged?

He can put up a fence, so long as he did not violate the Unlawful Enclosures Act, a Federal law that prevents fencing off certain Federal property, or access to Federal property in a certain manner.

Any other ideas?

I suspect there are many who have grown accustom to enjoying the benefit of having public lands as their own, without having to pay taxes on those lands. It is only natural that if you enjoyed the benefit of those public assets, possibly built cash flow streams around such, that you would not want to see things change, even if the change was constitutional. And, you would lobby your legislator to protect that right, regardless of the constitutionality and the hypocrisy it represents in the context of property rights.

None of the resistance from landowners is unreasonable or unexpected. What is unreasonable is when legislators only listen to the landowner concerns, a minority in most legislative districts, and when they refuse to listen to the concerns of the public. In the process, the legislators end up looking like fools and hypocrites on the topic of property rights.

 

[Mudranger1]

My question goes along the corner fence concern. What if both landowners have fences to the corner how do you get across? Do they need to leave a foot path between them? Randy you just mentioned unlawful enclosures act. If that were the case don't you already have legal access to that land? Or is it state land you are trying to access? I know it's tricky with our new Colorado weed act in place I've still seen 5 people getting arrested with trying to get on the local Air Force installation with it because it is against federal law. Just some thoughts/questions

 

[Toadslayer]

Then they graze those public lands down to the roots.

 

[Big Fin]

Got me thinking. Would you pay more for a chunk of land if it gave you exclusive hunting rights from a land locked public parcel? If so. Would you pay less if a corner rule was in place making it so you fairly shared the public parcel? Because when you look at land for sale one of the selling features is usually "boarders National forest." In other words your private land value is more because with it you get sole access to the publics land.

We all know the answer to that question. People have always paid more if they could control the access to public lands. They were willing to pay value for an asset they didn't own, but would have control over. The higher value they would pay is attributable to the public lands they controlled under existing law, not the value of the private lands.

Yes, they would pay less if they could no longer control access to public lands due to a change a the corner crossing rule. They would no longer have exclusive use of those public lands, so why pay extra for them?

The private land is not worth more, as you state. The public land that is now accessible is no longer an asset that is the exclusive use of the landowner, and therefore those public lands have less value to a buyer . So, his diminution of value is not related to any change in value of his private lands, rather because of the public lands now being accessible, something he has never owned to start with.