FWP lies about Corner Crossing

[Straight Arrow]

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

What are you saying? You're not making any sense.

 

[JLS]

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.

And this would not happen without a specific request from the landowner for law enforcement for all trespassers to be charged. LEOs don’t just randomly troll for folks, asking if they have permission to be where they are at.

DV is a complete different animal and shouldn’t be used as a comp.

I won’t derail your agenda thread anymore. This isn’t a good look for the organization you represent.

 

[RobG]

Montana FWP misstates the law here by telling the public that corner crossing is "unlawful" based upon FAQ guidance from 2021 that has not yet been updated. To be very clear: there is no law for OR against corner crossing in Montana. This is a legal gray area which has not been decided yet. I've reached out to the department to correct this false information, but be advised that the department is providing incorrect legal advice. Advice that, in my opinion, does not favor the public land user, and those of us who pay for their salaries and work, and pay taxes on those lands.

Based upon this statement, Montana FWP is advocating that people in Montana be prosecuted if they choose to corner-cross, so you do so at your own risk. Should you be prosecuted, Montana courts could view this issue differently. The Wyoming case does not have any precedence here, although it provides excellent logic. If only FWP would listen.https://fwp.mt.gov/homepage/news/2023/jun/0601-fwp-issues-statement-on-wyoming-corner-crossing-case

If you can find the Montana Access guide prior to 2021 you will see that FWP changed their position.

 

[Elky Welky]

And this would not happen without a specific request from the landowner for law enforcement for all trespassers to be charged. LEOs don’t just randomly troll for folks, asking if they have permission to be where they are at.

DV is a complete different animal and shouldn’t be used as a comp.

I won’t derail your agenda thread anymore. This isn’t a good look for the organization you represent.

Okay, no worries.

On Hunt Talk I only represent myself and nobody else, and I’m happy to move forward and keep fighting for public hunters and public access. I’ll use every tool at my disposal to help educate folks about these issues, and am happy to entertain any argument on the merits.

 

[Buffs35]

This just isn’t accurate. Adverse possession, prescriptive easements, eminent domain, fence out laws, legal trespassing for hunting all over the country, force pooling in OG, etc etc

I would comment that statutory pooling actually protects mineral owners in state spacing units that would otherwise be precluded from exploration of their own property by unwilling cotenants within the state's prescribed unit. It protects willing participants from harm, not the other way round.

 

[idahohuntr]

County attorneys are elected in MT, so that's something to note.

This is something we all need to pay attention to...every county attorney running for office in the western us with any sizeable amount of checkerboard ought to be forced to answer how they view and would handle corner crossing.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would comment that statutory pooling actually protects mineral owners in state spacing units that would otherwise be precluded from exploration of their own property by unwilling cotenants within the state's prescribed unit. It protects willing participants from harm, not the other way round.

Trespassing is fine when it’s protecting my interest

Take the base logic of force pooling and apply it to corner crossing.

Montana hunters are owners of public lands, their resource is wild game. They are unable to access their resource by unwilling adjacent landowners. So using the same basic rules of the statue on pooling if you asked for permission and were turned down then you would be able to trespass to exploit your resource.

The idea is one property owner can’t keep another from accessing their resource… so keep folks off public land.

 

[Derek44]

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. Sorry if you don't like that I'm qualified to talk about these things. You have every right to live in whatever reality you want.

I agree with the premise of your original statement. Especially with the comparison to assault. Only nuance you aren’t taking into account in your assertion is that there has to be a victim in order for there to be a crime. In your assault example, someone either has marks, or a complainant has called law enforcement. LEOs don’t just go around citing and arresting folks just in case they assaulted. I’m almost certain the same would hold true for trespassing. Joe Pickett isn’t going to just cite an individual thinking he might have gotten to close to a corner. The landowner would have some part in the initial part. Like I say. 1. Innocent till PROVEN guilty, and 2. No Victim, no crime.

 

[Derek44]

And this would not happen without a specific request from the landowner for law enforcement for all trespassers to be charged. LEOs don’t just randomly troll for folks, asking if they have permission to be where they are at.

DV is a complete different animal and shouldn’t be used as a comp.

I won’t derail your agenda thread anymore. This isn’t a good look for the organization you represent.

Yeah. That starts sounding like ….. Gustapo??

 

[JLS]

Yeah. That starts sounding like ….. Gustapo Gazpacho??

FIFY

 

[Derek44]

FIFY

Who doesn’t like a good soup? I prefer mine with grilled cheese.

 

[Dakotakid]

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.

Literally, yesterday, June 2 a defendant plead guilty to hunting without landowner permission after wardens driving down the road found a male and female loading a deer.

Upon investigation deer was shot at from roadway. After contacting the landowner, permission was not given.

Charges filed, defendant convicted.
No landowner involvement other than him saying he had not provided permission.

One thing people may not realize is that the attorney general has over sight over county attorneys and can direct prosecution. Fwp also has a prosecutor in the Ag office. It might not be the county attorney prosecuting.

 

[Eric Albus]

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.

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.

 

[SAJ-99]

Literally, yesterday, June 2 a defendant plead guilty to hunting without landowner permission after wardens driving down the road found a male and female loading a deer.

Upon investigation deer was shot at from roadway. After contacting the landowner, permission was not given.

Charges filed, defendant convicted.
No landowner involvement other than him saying he had not provided permission.

One thing people may not realize is that the attorney general has over sight over county attorneys and can direct prosecution. Fwp also has a prosecutor in the Ag office. It might not be the county attorney prosecuting.

I think normal, vanilla trespass and corner crossing are two different things. As does a Federal judge in WY, apparently. I agree though that a county prosecutor that wants to make a name for him/herself might bring a CC case, or the state AG’s office could tell them to, but pointing out reality is still valid. There are a lot of other problems in these counties that more important and require a lot of time and resources to deal with. Also, wardens don’t want to deal with this. Simply saying “after contacting the landowner…” is often a stretch. The wardens I have met are typically young and might not even have everyone’s name and number yet and being humans certainly can’t visibly pinpoint the precise location of a corner from a mile away. Then they have to find a cell signal or locate the landowner.

I think the statement is just that, words on paper to point out what could happen to “scare” people. I would really like to see the issue pressed in other states. Feels like we are still in limbo.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

Then there should be fiscal compensation from landowners who have public ground locked up. Let’s say pay half the annual property taxes? Otherwise mark the corner and let people haul a ladder a mile to get over the fence. Feeling your rights were violated is different than having your property damaged and incurring a loss.

 

[TheTone]

Literally, yesterday, June 2 a defendant plead guilty to hunting without landowner permission after wardens driving down the road found a male and female loading a deer.

Upon investigation deer was shot at from roadway. After contacting the landowner, permission was not given.

Charges filed, defendant convicted.
No landowner involvement other than him saying he had not provided permission.

One thing people may not realize is that the attorney general has over sight over county attorneys and can direct prosecution. Fwp also has a prosecutor in the Ag office. It might not be the county attorney prosecuting.

Sounds like the defendants gave plenty of reason to follow up with the landowner when it was found the deer was shot from a road thus making it illegal to begin with

 

[Straight Arrow]

When someone is forced into giving up a right EVERYONE gives up the same right

I do agree with that statement, Eric. However the "right" to block access to public land, particularly for exclusive private use and even exploitation, is a "right" conjured up by private property owners with land configured in such a checkerboard array. There is a history and laws replete with examples of the public right to use, enter private property, and otherwise respectfully and appropriately benefit from private property. Conversely there is also history and laws which protect private property rights which are not appropriate for the public to violate or use in any way. Corner crossing trespass is an ill-formed violation which should never have been concocted and now apparently will be overturned. Hopefully, what will ensue is a process of fairness and balance in which private property rights and public property rights are appropriately respected and codified clearly.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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 bet you $100 if you drive to Bozeman and stand 1 inch into Big Fin’s drive way no cop will write you a ticket.

I bet even if Randy calls the cops they won’t show up, and that no DA would prosecute.

I could walk around Bozeman with my dog and let him pee on the sides of folks houses without issue.

Porch piracy, stealing packages, is a huge problem. I’ve never heard of someone being charged with trespass, theft sure, trespass, ha…I could go on and on and on.

The slippery slope argument that your making is galling because most Americans have these small micro trespasses on their property daily and they go completely unnoticed.

This issue IMHO has nothing to do with trespass and everything to do with controlling public lands.

 

[shrapnel]

This issue IMHO has nothing to do with trespass and everything to do with controlling public lands.

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…

 

[Dave N]

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…

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