Landlocked State Trust Lands

[Ben Lamb]

Andrew McKean does a great job highlighting the DNRC's new mapping project. Glad to see DNRC engaging in this and helping provide some new tools for the public.

1.5 Million Acres of Montana State Trust Land Is Inaccessible, New Map Shows

A new mapping app for Montana lets users identify landlocked state lands in the state, which predominate in Central and Southeast Montana.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[seeth07]

"The DNRC defines sections as publicly accessible if they are legally accessible by either walk-in access through adjacent public land or adjacent trust land or motorized access by a public road or designated open road. The agency defines publicly inaccessible as parcels that are surrounded by private land and “are not accessible to the public without permission from an adjacent private landowner to cross through their property.” "

So a stance that corner crossing isn't legal in Montana. Great.

 

[Elky Welky]

My critique, of course, is that the DNRC seems to be assuming that corner crossing is illegal, which it isn't. It's also not explicitly legal, as there is no case law nor statute on the books. Far more of the squares should be marked as "special scenario."

 

[Forkyfinder]

If someone corner crosses (legit) and gets charged in MT - I will happily donate 100 dollars to their legal case.

Hope the AG reads this

 

[Elky Welky]

So a stance that corner crossing isn't legal in Montana. Great.

Yup, Dustin Temple decided last year that it was illegal, without any supporting law or precedent, nor any substantial change in Montana based upon some prior guidance. I also ran into a hunter's ed instructor in the field this fall, who told me FWP is training instructors to tell people it is illegal. This is false, and pretty scary. We're being ruled by fiat and not the law.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

"The DNRC defines sections as publicly accessible if they are legally accessible by either walk-in access through adjacent public land or adjacent trust land or motorized access by a public road or designated open road. The agency defines publicly inaccessible as parcels that are surrounded by private land and “are not accessible to the public without permission from an adjacent private landowner to cross through their property.” "

So a stance that corner crossing isn't legal in Montana. Great.

The map makes this definition clear. But the definition itself includes corner crossing, according to the geometric definition of adjacent, IMO?

 

[Nameless Range]

I think something potentially useful about this, and it’s something I wish the feds would do - is that the app allows the public to provide input in the State’s understanding of their own assessment of access. The fact is both the states and federal government often don’t know about legal access that exists to parcels they think are landlocked. Local knowledge is typically greater than an agency’s.

I have a local example of this of thousands of acres of BLM that the Bureau of Land Management thought was inaccessible until locals pointed out that a county easement provided access via a road that was no longer visible on the landscape.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Yup, Dustin Temple decided last year that it was illegal, without any supporting law or precedent, nor any substantial change in Montana based upon some prior guidance. I also ran into a hunter's ed instructor in the field this fall, who told me FWP is training instructors to tell people it is illegal. This is false, and pretty scary. We're being ruled by fiat and not the law.

Seems to me these are the glory days of corner crossing in MT.

If it's ever truly legalized then the advantage won't be the same as it is now as the entire public will then be doing it, making it no different than much of the other public land. If it's every made illegal, well then no one will be doing it anymore without trespassing . . .

 

[Elky Welky]

If it's ever truly legalized then the advantage won't be the same as it is now as the entire public will then be doing it, making it no different than much of the other public land.

I wouldn't go this far. Officially codifying the right we already have to access our land would help redistribute hunters and push wildlife back towards larger tracts of public. More accessible public land = less crowding.

 

[Dsnow9]

I wouldn't go this far. Officially codifying the right we already have to access our land would help redistribute hunters and push wildlife back towards larger tracts of public. More accessible public land = less crowding.

I agree. Most people don’t get out of their truck.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I wouldn't go this far. Officially codifying the right we already have to access our land would help redistribute hunters and push wildlife back towards larger tracts of public. More accessible public land = less crowding.

If a corner crossing piece gets "x" number of hunters now, when it's not codified, it only stands to reason it will get >"x" in the future if it's codified into law. I fail to see how advertising access will result in anything but more crowding on those particular parcels. I agree, perhaps the hunters will be more spread out in other places, but as it is now I do not believe many in Montana are corner crossing. This only stands to increase once/if codified, IMO.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I wouldn't go this far. Officially codifying the right we already have to access our land would help redistribute hunters and push wildlife back towards larger tracts of public.

Do you see the votes to do this with the current legislature?

More accessible public land = less crowding.

100% agree with this.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Do you see the votes to do this with the current legislature?

I'd predict UPOM buying lots of drinks early 2025 ... but they really wouldn't have to with the current legislature.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'd predict UPOM buying lots of drinks early 2025 ... but they really wouldn't have to with the current legislature.

They generally aren't the expensive whiskey & cheap steak people.

 

[Elky Welky]

Do you see the votes to do this with the current legislature?

Definitely not. My point was rhetorical and just in response to his position about now being the glory days. If anything, the votes would go the other way. I'm not aware of anyone bringing a bill for or against, though.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Definitely not. My point was rhetorical and just in response to his position about now being the glory days. If anything, the votes would go the other way. I'm not aware of anyone bringing a bill for or against, though.

Me either.

Detente on the issue during the session might be the best way forward. At least until the court case is settled.

 

[Eric Albus]

I wouldn't go this far. Officially codifying the right we already have to access our land would help redistribute hunters and push wildlife back towards larger tracts of public. More accessible public land = less crowding.

More accessible lands =more guy piles

 

[Forkyfinder]

More accessible lands =more guy piles

And?

 

[Dan O]

More accessible lands =more guy piles

More guy piles????

 

[Ben Lamb]

More guy piles????