Corner Crossing

[lastlight]

Has there been any talk of a donation type account set up in advance to support whoever wants to be the guinea pig? Its going to happen sooner than later and hopefully there will be many public land hunters willing to donate to the legal expenses incurred by the person who test's it in court. When that happens I would think quicker the hunting public could get an experienced and likely very expensive legal team in defense of the person that would be ideal. Realistically when the case is actually tried it could become the "precedent". There would be no sense in messing around with an inferior legal team.

I’ll take Venmo! I’ll be hunting our public lands in MT again this year.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I am no BLM lease expert, but my understanding is there is a built-in preference for adjacent land, so having antlerlandco do the leasing puts you in a better spot vs other potential lessors.

Depends on the state. In some states leases are based on property ownership (Montana). In others it is based off of water rights (IIRC Nevada is this way).

The lack of consistency between states is certainly one obstacle when we’re talking about solutions that are workable across the west.

 

[Bighollow]

What is the rationale and the precedent for states receiving compensation for sale of federal lands? (It reminds one of the push to "return" federal lands to the states. The states have no ownership nor vested interest which warrant the 25% compensation.)

I do agree that proceeds should go to increasing public access to other larger parcels, rather than to other funds.

The states pay for all the surrounding services, roads, essential services etc. Fifty percent of Wyoming land is owned and managed by the federal government. Federal lands are not subject to property taxes, a major source of revenue for county governments. Under current federal law, local governments are compensated through various programs for losses to their tax bases due to the presence of federally- owned land within their borders. The most widely applicable program, administered by BLM, applies to many types of federally-owned land and is known as the PILT program. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-565, 31 U.S.C. 6901-6907, as amended) was passed at a time when U.S. policy was shifting from one of disposal of federal lands to one of retention. The current BLM's regulations governing the procedures for disbursing PILT became effective on September 22, 2000. (43 CFR 1881) The law recognizes that the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on federally-owned land can create a financial impact. PILT are made in addition to other federal revenues that the federal government transfers to the states, such as those derived from commercial activities on federal lands including oil and gas leasing, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. https://wyoleg.gov/LSOResearch/2003/03ib001.pdf

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Has a state ballot initiative ever been considered ? Im sure landowners would take it to court if it did pass but at least then there would be an answer to the question.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The states pay for all the surrounding services, roads, essential services etc. Fifty percent of Wyoming land is owned and managed by the federal government. Federal lands are not subject to property taxes, a major source of revenue for county governments. Under current federal law, local governments are compensated through various programs for losses to their tax bases due to the presence of federally- owned land within their borders. The most widely applicable program, administered by BLM, applies to many types of federally-owned land and is known as the PILT program. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-565, 31 U.S.C. 6901-6907, as amended) was passed at a time when U.S. policy was shifting from one of disposal of federal lands to one of retention. The current BLM's regulations governing the procedures for disbursing PILT became effective on September 22, 2000. (43 CFR 1881) The law recognizes that the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on federally-owned land can create a financial impact. PILT are made in addition to other federal revenues that the federal government transfers to the states, such as those derived from commercial activities on federal lands including oil and gas leasing, livestock grazing, and timber harvesting. https://wyoleg.gov/LSOResearch/2003/03ib001.pdf

Your reply provides no rationale or precedent, and in fact, points to the current disbursement of payments in lieu of taxes.
"The states pay for all the surrounding services, roads, essential services etc." Conversely federal funds pay for the recreational and tourist centered lands contributing to the economy of the state(s) and furthermore taxes for those surrounding state services which would be existing for residents with or without federal public lands.

I still assert that any funds from sale of small federal public tracts should go to enhance access and improve existing larger public land tracts, forests, campgrounds, parks, and other public recreation and mixed use federal lands.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Your reply provides no rationale or precedent, and in fact, points to the current disbursement of payments in lieu of taxes.
"The states pay for all the surrounding services, roads, essential services etc." Conversely federal funds pay for the recreational and tourist centered lands contributing to the economy of the state(s) and furthermore taxes for those surrounding state services which would be existing for residents with or without federal public lands.

I still assert that any funds from sale of small federal public tracts should go to enhance access and improve existing larger public land tracts, forests, campgrounds, parks, and other public recreation and mixed use federal lands.

To me, the following summarizes the pro-state perspective on this topic:

I have a small yard. My neighbor has a big yard. My neighbor lets me use his yard sometimes, but not always. I think if I owned my neighbor's land I could make better use of it - I would put in a tennis court - and I could charge fees to play on it. This would generate money for me that I need. I covet my neighbor's land every day, and sometimes get angry about the unfairness of him denying me my just income. When he finally sells his home and the big yard I fully expect to get a portion of those proceeds because of all these years he has denied me my income stream from land that I deserved in the first place, but never owned.

 

[Straight Arrow]

To me, the following summarizes the pro-state perspective on this topic:

I have a small yard. My neighbor has a big yard. My neighbor lets me use his yard sometimes, but not always. I think if I owned my neighbor's land I could make better use of it - I would put in a tennis court - and I could charge fees to play on it. This would generate money for me that I need. I covet my neighbor's land every day, and sometimes get angry about the unfairness of him denying me my just income. When he finally sells his home and the big yard I fully expect to get a portion of those proceeds because of all these years he has denied me my income stream from land that I deserved in the first place, but never owned.

That is a very well constructed and clearly expressive analogy of the "pro-state" perspective (ideology). "land that I deserved in the first place" is the phrase which illustrates the fallacy very well.

 

[Bighollow]

Your reply provides no rationale or precedent, and in fact, points to the current disbursement of payments in lieu of taxes.
"The states pay for all the surrounding services, roads, essential services etc." Conversely federal funds pay for the recreational and tourist centered lands contributing to the economy of the state(s) and furthermore taxes for those surrounding state services which would be existing for residents with or without federal public lands.

I still assert that any funds from sale of small federal public tracts should go to enhance access and improve existing larger public land tracts, forests, campgrounds, parks, and other public recreation and mixed use federal lands.

The Federal government has always understood the importance of the states. State and local governments provide a wide variety of services—education, social services, public safety, transportation facilities, utilities, and much more. State governments spends funds on public welfare (20.4%), higher education (10.8%), and highways (5.2%). In contrast, local governments emphasized elementary and secondary education (35.0%), utilities (electricity, water, sewerage, and solid waste; 10.3%), and public safety (police, fire, and correctional facilities; 9.0%) among other expenses. Recognizing these high state and local government expenses and no taxes are paid by the Federal government to the states on any of these Federal lands, in Wyoming it is more than 50% of all land and in Nevada a whopping 81% then it is only fair to share 25% of the sales price of some Federal lands, if not developed to the states who funded and supported these lands. Timber sales payments to the states many years average over $500 million and in 1977 were $1.2 Billion. The Federal government currently shares 50% of all royalty money from the mineral estate so sharing 25% of the sales price seems appropriate to those who supported it all these years.
https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/papl-godby/

 

[Bighollow]

To me, the following summarizes the pro-state perspective on this topic:

I have a small yard, my neighbor has a big yard. My neighbor never pays his taxes and asks me to pay them and the homeowner association fees, keep up his yard and build and maintain all the roads, bridges and essential services. My neighbor sells his land and doesn’t share any of the monies with me despite all of my hard work, efforts, time and services. What kind of a person is he?

 

[Straight Arrow]

What kind of a person is he?

He is the kind of person who distorts the facts and attempts to portray reality as it is not ... much like Posts #203 and #209.

 

[Dakotakid]

Has a state ballot initiative ever been considered ? Im sure landowners would take it to court if it did pass but at least then there would be an answer to the question.

That is an interesting concept given the exceptions under the statute, though it may not solve the civil trespass issue.

Criminal trespass is
45-6-203. Criminal trespass to property. (1) Except as provided in 15-7-139, 70-16-111, and 76-13-116, a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly:

(a) enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure; or

(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.

The exceptions are- property assessors, surveyors and firewardens.

Could you add an exception to allow “lawful hunters accessing public property at a survey marker”?

It would have to be litigated as to whether that constitutes a taking under the 5th amendment. But you would actually just be decriminalizing the act?

That may not solve the civil issue of trespass or the unlawful hunting without landowner permission.

On the takings issue, the Montana public stream takings case and the elk farm takings case might be informative.

 

[Eric Albus]

I know of an instance in Montana where a citation was written and a deer confiscated

 

[JM77]

I know of an instance in Montana where a citation was written and a deer confiscated

How about more details?

 

[Eric Albus]

Hunter crossed corner to access state land, shot mule deer buck, landowner saw him do it, warden fined hunter for trespassing and took the deer. Hunter Bought antlers at recent FWP auction.
The end

 

[338win]

Hunter crossed corner to access state land, shot mule deer buck, landowner saw him do it, warden fined hunter for trespassing and took the deer. Hunter Bought antlers at recent FWP auction.
The end

Cite the source.

 

[JM77]

Hunter crossed corner to access state land, shot mule deer buck, landowner saw him do it, warden fined hunter for trespassing and took the deer. Hunter Bought antlers at recent FWP auction.
The end

Not saying your story is the same, but I have heard that scenario about a dozen times in Wyoming and every one was a trespass near a corner.

Most of these stories I heard were from landowners or outfitters.

 

[YoungGun]

I've seen it brought up quite a bit about the earth being round, so the parcels of public don't always touch at a corner. It seems to be one of the resounding arguments against corner crossing- that checkerboards are imperfect and there may be a minuscule overlap of private touching private, so there's no legal means to corner cross. My thought is, there's no way this works 100% of the time in favor of private property. It would stand to reason, that just as often as not, there may be a minuscule overlap of public touching public. Am I way off base here?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Cite the source.

Don't need the exact stool number or name of patron, but at least the name of the bar and the town.

 

[44hunter45]

I have a small yard, my neighbor has a big yard. My neighbor never pays his taxes and asks me to pay them and the homeowner association fees, keep up his yard and build and maintain all the roads, bridges and essential services. My neighbor sells his land and doesn’t share any of the monies with me despite all of my hard work, efforts, time and services. What kind of a person is he?

He is a large tract private landowner or a shill for them.

 

[BWALKER77]

How about selling the landlocked parcels and using the proceeds to buy land of equal or better quality?