Enlighten me on corner hopping

[Straight Arrow]

Good on you, wytex. Those examples illustrate what we all wish were the norm for hunter - landowner relations.

With respect to the ladder idea, I must acknowledge preference for a legal solution nationally to the corner-crossing issue. A seemingly "gadget" solution to circumvent the issue tends to increase the divisiveness between hunters and landowners. Landowners are generally as passionate about private property rights (whether merely perceived or based on law) as we are about access to public land hunting.

 

[James Riley]

It is not an actual law.

. . . .

Criminal Trespass - This is state criminal statute that defines what a crime is.

I think those two sentences are inconsistent. Trespass *is* an actual law. The legislature need not specify each and every possible circumstance which constitutes trespass, so long as the act committed falls under the definition provided. Corner hopping does.

I see nothing wrong with the legislature providing "liquidated" damages. If rights are widely ignored due to lack of incentive to honor them, then incentive can and should be provided. It's in the nature of punitive damages.

Not to BF, but generally:

Here's a thought I have not seen addressed: What if the private property owner does not own the mineral rights under his property? If those mineral rights are retained by the public, can you corner tunnel instead of hop?

I hate the idea of not being able to access my public lands. But I think the burden is upon my government to provide me with access; not some private party. Condemn and pay fair market value for the access. If, as suggested, the harm is minimal to non-existent, then that fair market value should be squat. We'll see how that pans out in a court of law.

I don't know about other states but in Colorado I see signs telling me that the burden of proof is upon me to know where the hell I am, and the land owners need not post or fence.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

My 2 cents, we help manage the wildlife on a 10, 000 A ranch that has some adjacent state sections, no vehicle access but walk in from the highway and corners. If we find people on the state we do not say squat as long as they stay on the public. The corners meet but have no markers. If hunters respect the private land then I think the landowners should respect the hunters. We find many trespassers and do not treat them the same. Many times I have unlocked the gate on private to let the public hunters retrieve their game without walking in. This gets me some respect and in turn helps with the trespassing problem. If you corner jump just respect the private adjacent.

Wytex great example of how everything should work! Respect

My father in law did an easement across on his property in CO 10-12 years ago, because his ranch was the only access point to a huge piece of BLM for miles and he didn't want that access to get shut down if his family ever had to sell the ranch. There are definitely landowners out there who want to help people hunt/fish not stop them.

 

[RobG]

Here's a thought I have not seen addressed: What if the private property owner does not own the mineral rights under his property? If those mineral rights are retained by the public, can you corner tunnel instead of hop?

And this folks, is why marijuana should be legal in all states! Love it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Hypothetically I don't think a tunnel would fly as it's not specifically for the extraction of resources, and you would have a really deep tunnel. Most Oil-Gas-Coal permits require you specify the formation you are drilling to get a permit. Also in the case of Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, ect. big land owners typically do own their minerals, most cases where minerals have been severed come from more developed areas, as general rule.

 

[Skeeter 20I]

And this folks, is why marijuana should be legal in all states! Love it.

Coffee just went everywhere. Thanks for that, gave me a good chuckle.

 

[James Riley]

Hypothetically I don't think a tunnel would fly as it's not specifically for the extraction of resources, and you would have a really deep tunnel. Most Oil-Gas-Coal permits require you specify the formation you are drilling to get a permit. Also in the case of Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, ect. big land owners typically do own their minerals, most cases where minerals have been severed come from more developed areas, as general rule.

Extraction of resources: Elk. Does the government have to specify a formation or even need a permit? Devil's advocate. Gotta love that mary jay whanna.

 

[RobG]

Extraction of resources: Elk. Does the government have to specify a formation or even need a permit? Devil's advocate. Gotta love that mary jay whanna.

How about quantum tunneling? The classical barrier is infinitely thin so if we stand close enough the probability that we would just suddenly appear on the other should be quite high.

 

[James Riley]

How about quantum tunneling? The classical barrier is infinitely thin so if we stand close enough the probability that we would just suddenly appear on the other should be quite high.

It sounds like a good legal argument to me. Quantum tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. So, the private property boundary is, in state law, that barrier that a hunter could not classically surmount, but, as the corner hopping argument observes, that boundary is infinitely thin. "Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I stood so close to it that I just suddenly appeared on the other side, without touching the private property." I like it! Another test case for after retirement.

 

[300stw]

why is it the bill has to include "hunting" cant a trespass occur while birdwatching? if the powers that be have to institute the hunting clause for the trespass, then I am assuming they want something protected from hunters, but not recreationists, so would they be wanting to protect game animals that may be on these public parcels,


if they want the bill passed take out the hunting part, and I can sue all the neighbor kids and get rich,,,,,not really but maybe you can see where this is going,,,,

It is not an actual law.

There are two aspects; Criminal Trespass and Civil Trespass. Both are governed by different concepts under law. I've hired attorneys to advise me on such and the same opinion comes clear from all legal minds I have engaged for adviace.

Criminal Trespass - This is state criminal statute that defines what a crime is. In Montana, and in most other states, their criminal statute does not specifically define whether or not corner crossing would constitute a Trespass violation under their definition of Criminal Trespass. Criminal violations come with citations, court appearances, and the state/county will be prosecuting you if they think they have a strong enough case.

Civil Trespass - This is a property rights issue, focused on whether or not you infringed on the property right of the adjacent landowners. Most all attorneys I have spoken to have opined that swinging your foot over the landowner's air space at that infinite intersection of the properties would constitute Civil Trespass. The same as when the neighbor kid kicks the football onto you lawn and comes over and retrieves it without permission. Technically, the kid has committed a great act of Civil Trespass than you would if you swung your foot across the airspace over the landowner's property.

With Civil Trespass, it is not a crime as defined by state statute. So, this is the landowner claiming you infringed on his property rights and he, not the State/County attorney, must take you to court to demonstrate that he was damaged and prove the amount of damages that he incurred. So, even if he prevailed under a Civil Trespass case, what would be the damages he could claim? Most attorneys tell me the court would award $0 damages and give a royal butt chewing to any attorney who wasted the court's time with a case that had $0 in damages.

Because of this distinction, the fringe in the Montana Legislature (and maybe other legislatures), introduced a bill to create a minimum damage under Civil Trespass while hunting. That would be the only civil offense I know of in Montana where state statutes provides a minimum damage, even if the damage was far less. They proposed the minimum damage awarded to the landowner be $1,500. Rather than the court deciding the damages, as is the protocol for all other civil claims I know of, the Legislature wants to make an exception for one single civil action - the possible act of civil trespass while hunting.

Some of you attorneys can chime in and add more to this.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It sounds like a good legal argument to me. Quantum tunneling refers to the quantum mechanical phenomenon where a particle tunnels through a barrier that it classically could not surmount. So, the private property boundary is, in state law, that barrier that a hunter could not classically surmount, but, as the corner hopping argument observes, that boundary is infinitely thin. "Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I stood so close to it that I just suddenly appeared on the other side, without touching the private property." I like it! Another test case for after retirement.

I would sign on to that test case! I have a couple physicists in the family who would gladly testify as expert witnesses.

Although maybe this won't be an issue for my grandchildren.
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-teleporter-transporter-3d-printing-star-trek

 

[RobG]

why is it the bill has to include "hunting" cant a trespass occur while birdwatching? if the powers that be have to institute the hunting clause for the trespass, then I am assuming they want something protected from hunters, but not recreationists, so would they be wanting to protect game animals that may be on these public parcels,


if they want the bill passed take out the hunting part, and I can sue all the neighbor kids and get rich,,,,,not really but maybe you can see where this is going,,,,

Drifting back on topic... .I'm guessing this 2013 bill was the one Fin talking about and in his old age I think he may have forgotten that you didn't have to be hunting. I say that with a laugh because I'm trailing closely behind in age and amount of write only memory and had forgotten my undies were in such a bunch over it. lol. I didn't understand the bigger context about $0 damages and corner crossing either.

 

[WapitiBob]

It's not a law in Wyoming and you will not be getting convicted of it, depending where you are. Do your research...

 

[RobG]

With Civil Trespass, it is not a crime as defined by state statute. So, this is the landowner claiming you infringed on his property rights and he, not the State/County attorney, must take you to court to demonstrate that he was damaged and prove the amount of damages that he incurred. So, even if he prevailed under a Civil Trespass case, what would be the damages he could claim? Most attorneys tell me the court would award $0 damages and give a royal butt chewing to any attorney who wasted the court's time with a case that had $0 in damages.

Did the attorneys indicate there could be legal fees with getting this $0 award? Or would it be so ridiculous that an attorney wouldn't have to be brought in.

If I ever get served for the Wittich thing I was told that typically getting a case like mine dismissed would be pretty expensive, although attorneys were willing to do it for free given the parties involved.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Wow. I was not expecting such a big response, but I have to say that I'm not surprised. This isn't something that comes up a lot in the northeast, as we don't have a much "checker boarding." However, thinking about it kinda makes my blood boil and I don't even deal with it very often. Sounds to me like a clear case of a minority interest trying to maintain control of a public resource. (We're going through this process right now in the Adirondacks with the right of the public to paddle on "navigable waters." People are testing the law in the courts and seeing some success.)
I wonder if any of these western states have a process for ballot initiatives, where the public could bypass the legislature and establish a right to cross in these spots?

 

[Dougfirtree]

In many cases, if it was clearly legal to cross the corner, then there would be no reason to cross the corner. It is kind of like thinking-if that road was open then I could go in there and shoot an elk- no, if that road was open there would be no elk there for me to shoot. Gray area is where the advantage lies. That said, I believe corner hopping should be legal.

Good point. I suspect you're right in many cases, but not all. There are some pretty big chunks of "landlocked" public land that have a corner attached to something else.

 

[FAIR CHASE]

Telescoping pole vaulting poles which double as hiking sticks.

 

[grizzly_]

I've heard one theory that the owners usable air space is the highest point at which a building could be constructed on that parcel (ie. if the building code was 35', then the owner could claim jurisdiction to that point). That seemed to make sense to me.

I still believe corner jumping should be legal and believe damages would simply be zero as long as a fence wasn't damaged, or something like that.

 

[JDH]

Good on you, wytex. Those examples illustrate what we all wish were the norm for hunter - landowner relations.

With respect to the ladder idea, I must acknowledge preference for a legal solution nationally to the corner-crossing issue. A seemingly "gadget" solution to circumvent the issue tends to increase the divisiveness between hunters and landowners. Landowners are generally as passionate about private property rights (whether merely perceived or based on law) as we are about access to public land hunting.

Is a locked gate a "gadget" solution? A knocked over ladder would serve the same purpose as a locked gate.

 

[Big Fin]

Did the attorneys indicate there could be legal fees with getting this $0 award? Or would it be so ridiculous that an attorney wouldn't have to be brought in.

Yeah, odds are one would incur a significant chunk of legal fees, whether losing or prevailing.