FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Nameless Range]

Montanans killing every last animal, and opening up more ground to access, are not necessarily contingent to one another. They can be seperate issues. When we talk about opening up millions of acres more, it's also a net good outside of hunting.


I want to just hike, not even hunt, the checkerboard south of me without fear of criminal charges or economic ruin. The CC issue is deeper than hunting. To be opposed to corner crossing because it will give bloodthirsty Montanans more access to ground they can't currently hunt, is akin to being opposed to the existence of all sorts of access - the Block Management Program comes to mind. But then there is nuance, because in most cases I support a more restrictive and difficult form of access (boot leather) in almost all instances where numerous access options are being considered. I think we can find better balance, but CC should be fought for.

Mumbling on, we can be in favor of opening up access to public land via CC, and still be in favor of Montana reckoning with our our unsustainable and piss poor management structure. In fact, if the latter will ever happen, the former may speed us along.

 

[rogerthat]

Yeah two completely separate issues. Montanas piss poor management really is only a topic because of its self. We could add it as a major issue to any conversation regarding hunting in Montana.

 

[300stw]

I agree. But in corner situations, the public landowner owns an equal share of the property at the corner as the private landowners do…same amount of land, same amount of air space. The private property rights should not trump or outweigh the equal share of public property rights.

It seems to me those corners should hold common rights for all property owners in a way that allows reasonable use while preventing unreasonable taking by all parties involved, not just one portion of the landowners.

your using common sense again,,,,, wont be tolerated in this state

 

[SAJ-99]

FWP seems poised to aggressively seek prosecutions to try and get rulings in favor of private interests.

Whoa, let's all take a deep breath. FWP isn't the one seeking prosecutions. The landowner needs to agree and the county prosecutor needs to agree that there is a case. There is a wide range of views from both landowners and county prosecutors across the state. From my point of view, there isn't much in your OP that is different than the way I understood the situation 10yrs ago, other than releasing the statement of course. There are laws on the books in MT regarding private property, trespass, and "airspace". I understand the questioning of FWP to put out the statement. We can debate the definition of "unlawful", but to no end.

The rest of your post is spot on and describes why the statement was put out. The supermajority wants to make it clear where they stand. It is unsettled law and the state wants to make sure it stays that way given the case in WY. I always figured the Wilks had better lawyers than I could afford, so no ladders for me .

In addition, the sentence "Wardens will continue to report corner crossing cases..." is almost comical. 1) there is a lack of wardens to adequately oversee the state the size of MT as it is, 2) Even they have some discretion on reporting these cases to the county (the landowner would have to press the issue) and concluding 3) "WILL CONTINUE..." seriously? How many wardens have ever reported a corner cross to the county over the last decade?

 

[Eric Albus]

That's a game management issue, not an access issue...hopefully Eric understands the difference.

When I need to have it explained to me at a 3rd grade level I’ll call. Thanks, and have a wonderful day.

 

[Eric Albus]

If the FWP would collect actual meaningful harvest data and manage tag numbers for the good of the animals and not the people with the power and money who has access to what is not a problem. This logic is like saying that instead of parents taking responsibility for how much candy their kids eat we should just lock up all the candy where only rich people can get it.

This is what myself and handful of my peers are advocating.

Last I spoke with FWP management I advocated for a 4 yr old age class buck. Permits are likely the only way to get here. I won’t go into the details as to why a 4yr old average is optimum IMO. I can if pressed and I have time.

 

[Eric Albus]

On public land that is.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I don’t want to corner cross to shoot mule deer and elk. I want to corner cross to sniff daisies, watch butterflies, hike a different hillside or whatever else I feel like doing that I would do on any other piece of public land.

 

[Irishman]

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.

What you're describing may well be what would happen in parts of Central or Eastern Montana. I have no idea, never hunted there, but maybe because it's so wide open, you might be correct.
In SW, W, and NW Montana, most of the land has always been open to hunting, yet there is still lots of wildlife. Maybe because there are lots of thick forested areas, and remote areas, where killing something is a little more challenging. Anyhow, it's been open for ever and the wildlife is still here.

 

[Elky Welky]

Whoa, let's all take a deep breath. FWP isn't the one seeking prosecutions. The landowner needs to agree and the county prosecutor needs to agree that there is a case. There is a wide range of views from both landowners and county prosecutors across the state. From my point of view, there isn't much in your OP that is different than the way I understood the situation 10yrs ago, other than releasing the statement of course. There are laws on the books in MT regarding private property, trespass, and "airspace". I understand the questioning of FWP to put out the statement. We can debate the definition of "unlawful", but to no end.

The rest of your post is spot on and describes why the statement was put out. The supermajority wants to make it clear where they stand. It is unsettled law and the state wants to make sure it stays that way given the case in WY. I always figured the Wilks had better lawyers than I could afford, so no ladders for me .

In addition, the sentence "Wardens will continue to report corner crossing cases..." is almost comical. 1) there is a lack of wardens to adequately oversee the state the size of MT as it is, 2) Even they have some discretion on reporting these cases to the county (the landowner would have to press the issue) and concluding 3) "WILL CONTINUE..." seriously? How many wardens have ever reported a corner cross to the county over the last decade?

One important quibble: once it gets reported, the landowner actually doesn't need to be involved or agree to do anything. Its a common misconception that the alleged victim has to want to pursue the charges, or that they have any say in what the prosecutor chooses to do. Much like the victim in an assault doesn't have to be the one pressing charges, it is always at the discretion of the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alone, whether to pursue charges (this is what I do for a living, and I have worked on both sides of it). It would, of course, help if the landowner ("the alleged victim") participated, but prosecutorial discretion is a powerful thing.

Both sheriffs deputies and wardens are law enforcement officers who issue the citations, after that, the deputy county attorney, or the county attorney, makes the call. County attorneys are elected in MT, so that's something to note. The department's statement is really just missing two words: "may be." Corner crossing may be unlawful in Montana. It is not simply "unlawful," nor is it "lawful." That's where FWP has made a clear error.

And as an agency under the executive branch tasked with enforcing the law, if they are going to declare, without any new evidence, that this is the law, then they are encouraging their officers to issue citations. That's where my concern is rooted.

 

[The Hedgehog]

What you're describing may well be what would happen in parts of Central or Eastern Montana. I have no idea, never hunted there, but maybe because it's so wide open, you might be correct.
In SW, W, and NW Montana, most of the land has always been open to hunting, yet there is still lots of wildlife. Maybe because there are lots of thick forested areas, and remote areas, where killing something is a little more challenging. Anyhow, it's been open for ever and the wildlife is still here.

Doesn't sound like a corner crossing is something of any use in the thick-forested game-rich areas of western MT for the hunters looking for more of a challenging hunt.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Doesn't sound like a corner crossing is something of any use in the thick-forested game-rich areas of western MT for the hunters looking for more of a challenging hunt.

... and where, according to Irishman, lands both public and private have been "always open to hunting" forever.

 

[SAJ-99]

the landowner actually doesn't need to be involved or agree to do anything. Its a common misconception that the alleged victim has to want to pursue the charges, or that they have any say in what the prosecutor chooses to do.

True, certainly in criminal trespass, but a civil suit needs the landowner involved. My bad, I should have pointed that nuance out. I think we need get this settled, both criminal and civil, but it goes against a lot of people's interest to press the issue. Maybe we need a Go Fund Me to find a MT landowner willing to start it up. Regardless, the comment from FWP falls into the SD&STFU category. No warden is going to call the county attorney to report trespass if the landowner doesn't press it.

 

[Elky Welky]

True, certainly in criminal trespass, but a civil suit needs the landowner involved. My bad, I should have pointed that nuance out. I think we need get this settled, both criminal and civil, but it goes against a lot of people's interest to press the issue. Maybe we need a Go Fund Me to find a MT landowner willing to start it up. Regardless, the comment from FWP falls into the SD&STFU category. No warden is going to call the county attorney to report trespass if the landowner doesn't press it.

Fair enough @SAJ-99, and likely true. It would certainly be nice to have something on the books providing some clarity here. But the only way it will happen, as you point out, is if something gets advanced that is against a lot of people's interest. Very few people have been willing to take it on, but with the WY case, it has become more pressing by the day.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

On public land that is.

Permits on public land? Sure hate for those clients to be on an equal footing With the rest of us chumps. Once again, below is why you hate corner crossing.

 

[JLS]

Its a common misconception that the alleged victim has to want to pursue the charges, or that they have any say in what the prosecutor chooses to do

I have a hard time believing you can have trespass charges filed without a victim landowner requesting such.

I know for a fact trespass charges can and likely almost certainly will be dropped if the landowner chooses not to pursue the complaint.

 

[Elky Welky]

I have a hard time believing you can have trespass charges filed without a victim landowner requesting such.

I know for a fact trespass charges can and likely almost certainly will be dropped if the landowner chooses not to pursue the complaint.

Once the citation gets into the hands of the prosecutor, it is up to them. They often do listen to alleged victims, but they don't have to. Take it for what it is worth.

 

[Irishman]

Doesn't sound like a corner crossing is something of any use in the thick-forested game-rich areas of western MT for the hunters looking for more of a challenging hunt.

Nah, every living thing was killed on public land in the west. Actually, I heard it took 2 years.

 

[JLS]

Well if you know it for a fact, then don't let my experiences as both a deputy county attorney and now a practicing criminal defense attorney in Montana get in the way. All I have is experience, a law degree, and a bar card.

Once the citation gets into the hands of the prosecutor, it is up to them. They often do listen to alleged victims, but they don't have to. Take it for what it is worth.

How many instances have you ever seen an open field trespass filed with out a victim?

How many trespass citations has FWp ever filed or referred without a victim?

You may have passed the bar exam, but I live in reality.

 

[Elky Welky]

How many instances have you ever seen an open field trespass filed with out a victim?

How many trespass citations has FWp ever filed or referred without a victim?

You may have passed the bar exam, but I live in reality.

Honestly I have no idea how many cases like this I've seen. I see hundreds of trespassing cases yearly, maybe thousands over my career. You're conflating and confusing some of my points, and can go back and see how I conceded that prosecutors listen to victim input, but they don't have to.

Here's a trespass specific example: someone is trespassing and the warden sees them. Absentee landowner is nowhere nearby, or it's some big corporation. Warden asks person if they have permission to be there. They say they don't (believe it or not, lots of people say dumb things to law enforcement). Warden issues a citation, it goes to the county attorney. County attorney prosecutes. "Victim" might not ever know it happened until the defendant gets convicted/sentenced. This kind of thing happens all the time.

The easier example I used earlier is domestic assault cases, where prosecutors often use their discretion over the explicit objection of the victim: Victim gets beat up by their spouse, spouse gets prosecuted, victim doesn't want their spouse prosecuted, but for the sake of public safety, the prosecutor proceeds to pursue the charges without the victim's input.

Here's a corner crossing specific example: hypothetically let's say corner crossing is illegal and there is a statute saying so, and someone is corner crossing and a warden sees it. The warden issues a citation, which goes to the prosecutor. One (or both) of the landowners could subsequently say to the prosecutor: "well that person didn't have my permission to cross at the time, but I'm okay with it now and don't want to press charges." The prosecutor could very well say: "well, as a matter of public policy, corner crossing is illegal, and I'm going to pursue this charge anyways and seek to convict them because they violated the law."

I think that sums up all I have to contribute to your comments.