TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,613
Correct. The conviction came where the corners did not abut each other.
Corner Crossing
- Thread starter mstolte
- Start date
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 820
Cherry was prosecuted for crossing 80 ft of private property to get to public land.
He argued that he was not “hunting” when he crossed private property. Similar to what the WY AG decided.
The Montana Supreme Court rejected that logic.
“¶13 While Cherry argues he was not "taking or attempting to take game animals" as he crossed the 80 feet of private property, he was engaged in the act of hunting. Cherry was wearing hunter’s orange, had a rifle in his possession, and admitted to Warden Scott that he was hunting while crossing the offset portion of private property to get to Section 2. The purpose of hunting is to "take or attempt to take" a game animal; it is not a separate action from hunting. As the Warden testified: "Hunting begins at the time you leave your vehicle until you get back. You can’t walk across someone else’s land to get to more public land and just say you are not hunting when crossing private land." As clearly provided for in § 87-6-415, MCA, Cherry needed permission prior to hunting on Point of Rocks Ranch private property.”
Are you solely hung up on the distinction that 80 ft an 8 inches are different measurements so the legal arguments are immaterial?
JM77
Well-known member
You cannot compare a touching corner to an 80' void. That is two totally different situations.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You also can't assume he "won" on the corner crossing - AGs often drop some charges when they like the case on other charges better.
JM77
Well-known member
That's not what I said and you know it. Please don't assume for me.
I find myself not reading most of what you post on here.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 820
Vikingsguy,
What is your take on the definition of "hunting" used in the Cherry case? How about walking in or out, before or after shooting hours,,,,(sorry, couldn't help it!!!)....couldn't that be construed as "hunting"?
Second question, how about if he unloaded and cased his firearm....would he have been okay? Taken further, how about a nonhunter out for a stroll who decides to corner cross? My opinion (not worth 2 cents) is that "hunting" has nothing to do with the larger issue of corner cross trespass. That is just our reason for the discussion as we are hunters who would love to be able to access our public lands.
What is your take on the definition of "hunting" used in the Cherry case? How about walking in or out, before or after shooting hours,,,,(sorry, couldn't help it!!!)....couldn't that be construed as "hunting"?
Second question, how about if he unloaded and cased his firearm....would he have been okay? Taken further, how about a nonhunter out for a stroll who decides to corner cross? My opinion (not worth 2 cents) is that "hunting" has nothing to do with the larger issue of corner cross trespass. That is just our reason for the discussion as we are hunters who would love to be able to access our public lands.
JM77
Well-known member
If you want to talk other than corner cross, go right ahead. That's not what I am discussing.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 820
RobG
Well-known member
For what it is worth, Cherry used the same attorney as I did. I can assure you that he charged to get that thrown out.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
In Montana Code, there is a distinction between trespass when it comes to hunting vs non-hunting users. All hunting requires permission from the landowner. Non-hunting users may enter or cross non-posted private land on foot, though obtaining permission is recommended.
Certainly not one that puts the sole cost of such access on hunters, to start. A legislative approach that gives as much weight to public landowner desires as to private landowner desires would be preferable. After all, if there are four parcels at a corner, and half of those corners belong to me (Jane Public landowner), why should I not get equal consideration in deciding how access at that corner works? Maybe too idealistic, but seems only fair.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
Is it unreasonable to start working on a project with the landowners to have these corners officially surveyed to end this madness. I know many landowners would still think it’s unfair, but I bet most hunters along with orgs like BHA and RMEF would be willing to foot the bill. Obviously this would take time and you’d have to prioritize which should be surveyed first. Just a thought.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Not really the issue. There are notable corners that are clearly marked where landowners are all bent out of shape about crossing.
The issue at hand is that in the same vein as the bundys at Malheur there are a bunch of landowners in the west that believe that they own/are entitled to exclusive use of our public lands.
Last edited by a moderator:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And the exact location of the corner is not even an issue.
huntin24/7
Well-known member
So what is the main issue preventing this…aside from wealthy landowners not wanting things to change? I understand that it’s not a simple issue but I feel like we have the technology to solve this problem. I’m sure a lot of politicians don’t want things changed either. I actually emailed a certain MT rep who’s been mentioned in this thread about this issue when it came up several years ago. I was very careful to be respectful and classy about it. His response was not informative and he was basically a condescending p*ick. But after talking with some locals it sounds like that’s the norm for that family.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Two different areas of law - trespass vs. fish/game. The gun/bow has nothing to do with the trespass question (although in some states trespassing with a weapon gets higher criminal penalty). Some states have added to their hunting regs rules/consequences for committing trespass while "hunting". Each state could define in it's own way, but from what I know MT, for example, your license doesn't cover hunting that involves trespass in or out - so you can be fined and lose the animal if you got it. In contrast, at least until the next AG changes it, WY appears that it won't prosecute the fish/game trespass violations if the trespass is only a corner crossing.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Political willpower is what is missing. If legislators start losing seats in a way attributable to this issue it would be changed right quick, but isn't going to happen because too few registered voters in their districts are making this an all or nothing issue in the ballot box. Or as one HT member said - there is no money in it to fix this.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
And with signs like that, there is no way you could legally corner cross even if it was a thing. Any resolution would not only need to clarify crossing corners is not a violation but further that attempting to hinder such crossing is an offense of its own.Not really the issue. There are notable corners that are clearly marked where landowners are all bent out of shape about crossing.
The issue at hand is that in the same vein as the bundys at Malheur there are a bunch of landowners in the west that believe that they own/are entitled to exclusive use of our public lands.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The prevalent issue is access to wildlife habitat, that is access to good hunting for elk and deer primarily ... exclusive access.
Technology is a non-issue, nor does it matter if the technology is available or not.
What would you pay for the loss of the landowner’s property?
