FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[shrapnel]

But who starts it and how much money will the rich landowners "donate" to keep it from getting voted on?

Good thing our forefathers didn’t ask the same question about England…

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I do not “hate corner crossing”. I’m on the fence.
I am a landowner, who grew up a public land hunter. Id like to see a Supreme Court decision on CC. I have a hard time believing that I can legally corner hop.

I have zero right to step one inch on another person’s property without their consent. This means I don’t think you have that right either, in case you’re curious. Then there is the airspace issue, I don’t think I have a “right” to fly a drone around on yours or any others private property either. I also don’t think I can reasonably prop a ladder up high enuf not to violate airspace.

The main thing I think of with CC is where do we stop? When someone is forced into giving up a right EVERYONE gives up the same right.

I will second what @wllm mentioned.

I grew up in town about half of my childhood. The other half outside of town. Both in Ohio. One place I lived at had a sidewalk and the other place did not. Where do pedestrians walk when there is no sidewalk? On private property. Our road didn’t have a lot of pedestrians but it never once occurred to my mom or I to press charges for trespassing. There were places in town where the sidewalk would stop and start up again, almost all those places had lawns in between the sections of sidewalk with a dirt path worn down. There is more damage being done to private property there than from any corner crossing.

There was a hobby shop on the next street over behind my house. I would trespass daily after school to walk over there through 3 neighbors backyards. Never an issue.

Our backyard bordered both our neighbors and had no fence. I played a lot in my yard but sometimes a ball would roll over into the neighbors yard and I would trespass to retrieve it. Never an issue.

Our family farm was bifurcated when Interstate 71 came through. My grandpa had NO say in that and I believe that took 20ish acres. The government just gave everyone a check for the land, which I think is a 99 year lease . When comparing corner crossing, or even trail easements they pale in comparison to what that highway did to the farm and wildlife etc. So just as @wllm also mentioned private property rights are not absolute or sacrosanct. How many acres of private land have been violated to construct our Interstate highway system? I’m sure to open up all public lands to foot traffic corner crossing would be exponentially less.

Let’s say all big game went extinct overnight. Would these landowners still be opposed to corner crossing?

The issue really isn’t trespassing or private property rights it’s control over what has become a valuable resource. The idea that private property is being damaged or a right infringed is sorta ludicrous when you compare the above examples that are happening hundreds or thousands? of times daily across Anytown, USA.

Maybe in town folks are just better neighbors than country folk. Or maybe country folk are worried they will lose their sole access to public lands?

The private land will still remain private and big game can seek refuge there.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

If all the sudden, all private land was open to hunting in MT, what would happen? 1) everybody would be spread out and we'd have perfect harmony and hunting happiness, or 2) every living, breathing, animal in MT would likely be smoked meat in the matter of a couple seasons.

Damn….

 

[shoots-straight]

Just asking a question:

So if I ( a land owner) bought a piece of land encompassed by public lands (not in Wilderness or other protected property) and only way to get there was through that public land, get access to build a road through said public lands to my property? Anyone?

 

[Flatbrimmer]

The definitive, “it is illegal” is both comical and sad because in our country we’ve never had law by fiat. There has to be a law on the books or a judicial ruling clarifying a law. Sure MFWP can interpret law, but so can any private citizen. Challenge accepted.

Dude Aren’t you a cop?? How can you say that? If someone that you pulled over challenged you on some gray area legal jive like this, you wouldn’t like to be on the defending end of the challenge. Dangerous thinking coming from a LEO

The new guy cited pretty darn good examples of how it would be trespass and it IS illegal. At least, he cited it well enough that I’m not as on the fence as I was! It’s not as gray when someone can pull up the code and definitions that thoroughly

 

[idahohuntr]

I do not “hate corner crossing”. I’m on the fence.
I am a landowner, who grew up a public land hunter. Id like to see a Supreme Court decision on CC. I have a hard time believing that I can legally corner hop.

I have zero right to step one inch on another person’s property without their consent. This means I don’t think you have that right either, in case you’re curious. Then there is the airspace issue, I don’t think I have a “right” to fly a drone around on yours or any others private property either. I also don’t think I can reasonably prop a ladder up high enuf not to violate airspace.

The main thing I think of with CC is where do we stop? When someone is forced into giving up a right EVERYONE gives up the same right.

Too many landowners see private property as sacrosanct, and public property as undeserving of any respect. Fortunately, this judge pointed out the fallacy of such thought and clearly noted at shared corners the private owner does not have 'boundless rights'...there is a mutual interest and mutual responsibility. I believe the judge also noted these ideological extremes are totally inconsistent with property rights which are frequently 'infringed' by things like zoning and other local, state, and federal restrictions.

I wonder what landowners would say if a private party bought the public checkerboard? Neither private owner could legally access land absent consent of both parties? In that vein, this is a win for property rights in general. Even if it means landowners who want to desperately keep public wildlife to themselves now have to share that public resource in some small way.

 

[idahohuntr]

Just asking a question:

So if I ( a land owner) bought a piece of land encompassed by public lands (not in Wilderness or other protected property) and only way to get there was through that public land, get access to build a road through said public lands to my property? Anyone?

Apples/Oranges. You have access to your private land in this situation. Your ability to build a road would be contingent on any rights secured (easement) or agreement with the public land management agency. I don't see this ruling as having any bearing on a 'right to build a road on public land'. Factually way too different.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Dude Aren’t you a cop?? How can you say that? If someone that you pulled over challenged you on some gray area legal jive like this, you wouldn’t like to be on the defending end of the challenge. Dangerous thinking coming from a LEO

The new guy cited pretty darn good examples of how it would be trespass and it IS illegal. At least, he cited it well enough that I’m not as on the fence as I was! It’s not as gray when someone can pull up the code and definitions that thoroughly

Again, no one has yet cited a law that says stepping from public to public over a corner is illegal when the public has just as much property right at that corner as the private landowner. Property rights should work both ways. Your property rights do not include infringing on my property rights.

This FWP corner crossing statement kind of reminds me of all the years FWP ticketed folks for not leaving evidence of sex naturally attached to the carcass. Oops. Turns out the law doesn’t actually say that, even if that’s what FWP told people it said. Ended up being unenforceable and they’ve changed the verbiage in the regs to reflect that is not actually required.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Again, no one has yet cited a law that says stepping from public to public over a corner is illegal when the public has just as much property right at that corner as the private landowner. Property rights should work both ways. Your property rights do not include infringing on my property rights.

This FWP corner crossing statement kind of reminds me of all the years FWP ticketed folks for not leaving evidence of sex naturally attached to the carcass. Oops. Turns out the law doesn’t actually say that, even if that’s what FWP told people it said. Ended up being unenforceable and they’ve changed the verbiage in the regs to reflect that is not actually required.

Why didn't FWP simply change the regs to make it enforceable? Up here scrotum must be attached to one quarter of any bull or buck that has been cut up in the field. Once it's at your home, then it doesn't matter. No butcher that I know of will take the meat if hide is on and no scrotum. If accompanied by antlerless tag, no scrotum needed. Seems like an easy fix.

Oh wait ... this must be about the newfangled gutless method bullshit.* Still, I don't think it would be too hard to leave the scrotum attached somewhere to a sack of loose dirty meat.

*Actually, it's not newfangled. A few folks did that when I was a young man. They were generally regarded as slob hunters. In Africa PH will look at you like you're nuts if you suggest trying it. Elephant may be the exception. I don't hunt them.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Why didn't FWP simply change the regs to make it enforceable?

As clearly stated above, proof of sex is not required to be physically attached to the carcass. Enclosed in a sealed plastic bag with the carcass satisfies the intent of the law.
First year that was a reg in the field to be enforced I was about to be cited for sealing a buck antelopes' genitals and doe antelope teats in a plastic bag. I adamantly argued that it was bad field dressing to leave parts which might ruin antelope meat. FWP LEO was unwavering, so I had him call his supervisor, who fortunately told him to warn me and let it go.
It wasn't long afterward that FWP reconsidered the poor decision.

 

[OntarioHunter]

It's too bad the federal govt can't just step in and put an end to the controversy. Property owners with checkerboard BLM holdings can either allow public access across corners or give up their grazing leases. But of course that would require a Congress with more regard for public good and less bound to bipartisan division. Hardly likely that we could expect greedy selfish Republicans to identify with the unwashed masses. And trying to get the Democrats on board with hunting and guns? Yeah, right. Where is the Fairy Godmother? We are just lucky the feds are hanging onto that land ... for all the good it does us ... which is, relatively speaking, not much.

 

[mtmiller]

We are just lucky the feds are hanging onto that land ... for all the good it does us ... which is, relatively speaking, not much.

Guess you will stick to Crown lands from here on out?

 

[OntarioHunter]

As clearly stated above, proof of sex is not required to be physically attached to the carcass. Enclosed in a sealed plastic bag with the carcass satisfies the intent of the law.
First year that was a reg in the field to be enforced I was about to be cited for sealing a buck antelopes' genitals and doe antelope teats in a plastic bag. I adamantly argued that it was bad field dressing to leave parts which might ruin antelope meat. FWP LEO was unwavering, so I had him call his supervisor, who fortunately told him to warn me and let it go.
It wasn't long afterward that FWP reconsidered the poor decision.

I see. So I can hand off my zip lock baggie of elk balls to any number of poachers to misidentify the cows they poached and that "satisfies the intent of the law?" I thought the intent of the law was to PREVENT that!

And you really managed to convince some FWP supervisor that you would risk wasting meat leaving the scrotum or teets attached? He bought that? I guess he didn't have much experience field dressing animals. I have almost sixty years experience and that's bullshit pure and simple. I would have laughed ... and written you a citation.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Guess you will stick to Crown lands from here on out?

I'm still an American citizen and still a Montana property owner. I have a right to be concerned about US federal land. Someday it will be confirmed with the military headstone over my grave.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Why didn't FWP simply change the regs to make it enforceable?

Um, they did. That’s literally what I said.

What they can’t do is change the law, which is what they were doing by requiring the naturally attached business when the law says no such thing.

And it appears they may be doing it again with this statement on corner crossing…just to bring the thought back full circle.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Dude Aren’t you a cop?? How can you say that? If someone that you pulled over challenged you on some gray area legal jive like this, you wouldn’t like to be on the defending end of the challenge. Dangerous thinking coming from a LEO

The new guy cited pretty darn good examples of how it would be trespass and it IS illegal. At least, he cited it well enough that I’m not as on the fence as I was! It’s not as gray when someone can pull up the code and definitions that thoroughly

I’m not entirely sure of your argument, but in my job I have a degree of authority over others. Literally every enforceable action is reflected by a law. We also have a pretty good working knowledge of court rulings pertaining to the what we do. Even court rulings where the jurisdiction doesn’t extend to my exact space, it still guides our decisions as a future ruling on the same matter in our jurisdiction is likely to be very similar.

The overwhelming majority of my contacts don’t involve rules anyways. In practice it’s a lot of listening, pointing out safety and wellness concerns, and having discussions. IMO there’s a lot more value in engaging people in a less formal manner.

There are questionable activities going on everywhere all the time. Unless it’s a crystal clear violation that’s worth the time and effort to enforce, you just have a conversation. Probably the biggest barrier is people being able to engage that way productively is previous poor experiences with public safety authorities.

Imagine if LE responded to ElK mtn and said to the ranch mgr, hey please be respectful of the public’s legal use of public lands, and then talked to the hunters and had a discussion about the mgr’s concerns about tresspassing. Everyone please get along and I don’t want to have to come out here again, so can we all agree to behave ourselves?

Except all that’s thrown out the window with the Feudal Lord demanding tickets be issued, and then your LE boss instructs you to issue tickets.

 

[Straight Arrow]

almost sixty years experience and that's bullshit pure and simple

Almost seventy years here ... and your response is perceived as ill-informed opinionated arrogance ... pure and simple!

Furthermore, the intent did not focus on poaching, but on the taking of wildlife not allowed by a specific permit or license specifying sex of animal to be tagged

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This may or may not be true. I don’t know how the corner crossing issue ever became a law or imposition, but in simple Geometry, I did learn that a point on a plane has no dimension and I am assuming that is the genesis of the issue of not recognizing a corner as a point of access.

How it has turned into such a critical concern is interesting, but I can’t see why it can’t be resolved the same as the stream access bill that allows trespass (if you want to call it that) onto lands that have free flowing water and be able to fish those streams.

Lines have been drawn and there is so much emotion about the rights of access, I can’t help but think a little legislative action could solve the problem to allow access at a corner that now seems to be contested…

In mapping we call that Euclidean Space /Geometry, that being representational geometry without the “stickiness” of reality.

I’m not even taking about that, though there is some grey area there.

To be clear, I also respect private property rights, don’t think folks should trespass and have even experienced folks trespassing to kill deer on family property.

My point though is that trespass isn’t a black or white topic, as a society we agree that many types of trespass are acceptable and even necessary.

Legislation could fix it, getting easements from landowners could fix it, but I think if we are being honest the reason that hasn’t happened universally has nothing to do with folks understanding of geometry.

 

[Big Fin]

I'll be inquiring of FWP next week as to the source of authority on their affirmative statement that corner crossing is "unlawful." My attorneys spent considerable time yesterday trying again to find such a case or statute and none were found.

I will post here what I am provided, if anything.

 

[Wildabeest]

Almost seventy years here ... and your response is perceived as ill-informed opinionated arrogance ... pure and simple!

Furthermore, the intent did not focus on poaching, but on the taking of wildlife not allowed by a specific permit or license specifying sex of animal to be tagged

He shits in a camp fire for God’s sake. Do you think he cares whether genitalia contaminate his meat?