Montana Free Press Series on Corner Crossing

[Beignet]

Probably no new revelatory info in here for anyone on the forum who has been paying attention. But, Amanda Eggert's series on corner crossing in Montana Free Press is worth a read.

Didn't want to gum up previous threads on the issue's court status in Wyoming.

Edited to add some links for ease of access. (pun intended)

Article 1)

Montana proponents for public access, landowners, await implications of Wyoming lawsuit

Outcome of pending corner-crossing case could impact who has the right to use — or lock up — more than eight million acres across the West.

montanafreepress.org

Article 2)

Nearly 900,000 acres of Montana in access limbo

Montana has nearly 900,000 acres of “corner-locked” land, putting them in access limbo. Stakeholders in the corner-crossing debate discuss the complexities that have sustained the murkiness of the issue and highlight what’s at stake.

montanafreepress.org

Article 3 is out on Monday, March 18th.

 

[Big Fin]

Probably no new revelatory info in here for anyone on the forum who has been paying attention. But, Amanda Eggert's series on corner crossing in Montana Free Press is worth a read.

Didn't want to gum up previous threads on the issue's court status in Wyoming.

Abiding forum rules and not posting links, so you'll have to use the old CTRL+C -> CTRL+V.

Article 1) "Montana proponents for public access, landowners, await implications of Wyoming lawsuit"

Article 2) "Nearly 900,000 acres of Montana in access limbo"

Article 3 is out on Monday, March 18th.

​

You can post a link to it. Amada usually has some good work.

 

[RobG]

From the article:



Amanda is a good writer, but too bad she didn't ask him what law Dan's opinion was based on. Are there explicit laws in the other states?

 

[BuzzH]

In general, decent article, but there are some things that aren't said that should have been, some things should have been clarified, and some things that are not accurate.

 

[Elky Welky]

too bad she didn't ask him what law Dan's opinion was based on

I'd like to know too, given that it simply doesn't exist.

Chuck Denowh, in the first article, also calls public access a "taking." Takings apply to the federal government, not the general public. One of the primary cases anti-public people like Chuck use to claim CC is illegal was a 1940s decision that found a federal plane flying low over a ranch was a federal taking. This logic shouldn't be conflated with public access (FWP made the same error last spring when they decided to declare what the law is without having any authority to do so, citing that exact case).

If anyone is interested in a legal deep dive into what the actual laws are in MT, and how they can change, here's this link (also referenced in Amanda's first article):

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/thinking_about_corner_crossing_in_montana_read_this_first

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Its funny how UPOM wrote that the landlocked public land acts as wildlife preserves and that if cc was legal hunters would flood these lands. That's literally just a UPOM opinion, what legal relevance does that statement even have.

 

[Elky Welky]

Its funny how UPOM wrote that the landlocked public land acts as wildlife preserves and that if cc was legal hunters would flood these lands. That's literally just a UPOM opinion, what legal relevance does that statement even have.

UPOM notoriously wants to have their cake and eat it too. They are suing MT because they like to complain about having too many elk, but have no interest in participating in the ample opportunities they have on hand to utilize public resources to manage the herds. https://www.keepelkpublic.org/Further, when given a chance to reduce public pressure on public land which would therefore move the elk back to public, they advocated for adding more hunters to the landscape, only exacerbating the problem. As I noted above, Chuck misused a legal term of art "taking," similar to some of the folks at FWP.

I appreciate that Amanda interviewed so many people here, including Chuck. It's good to know how the other side of this issue thinks, even when their thinking is fatally flawed.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

UPOM notoriously wants to have their cake and eat it too. They are suing MT because they like to complain about having too many elk, but have no interest in participating in the ample opportunities they have on hand to utilize public resources to manage the herds. https://www.keepelkpublic.org/Further, when given a chance to reduce public pressure on public land which would therefore move the elk back to public, they advocated for adding more hunters to the landscape, only exacerbating the problem. As I noted above, Chuck misused a legal term of art "taking," similar to some of the folks at FWP.

I appreciate that Amanda interviewed so many people here, including Chuck. It's good to know how the other side of this issue thinks, even when their thinking is fatally flawed.

100% this. Could UPOM be more hypocritical.

 

[BourbonSnowCone]

. This logic shouldn't be conflated with public access (FWP made the same error last spring when they decided to declare what the law is without having any authority to do so, citing that exact case).

Let’s be perfectly clear when we say “FWP decided to declare what the law is.” Their interim director made the statement. An IT guy angling for permanent appointment who would parrot anything GG and his landowner/outfitter cronies tell him to.