I know legislative initiatives have died in the Montana legislature, but why not a voter initiative? Word it so it only applies to parsels where at least one of the corners is public land of at least 160 acres. Word it so it is the adjacent landowners responsibility to mark what is private, and the sportsmans groups or FWPs responsibility to install a reasonable means of making the crossing without stepping on the private land. It's not just Hunting and fishing, but hiking and all other outdoor activities. Yeah the big ranchers are a rich lobby but the population is what votes, and the ability to access more public land with no rear harm to private land or cost to the taxpayers seems like an easy win at the ballot box.
Montana voter initiative for corner crossing.
- Thread starter Hersbird
- Start date
Another thought on a fence post right on the corner, doesn't a single post on the corner trespass into the public land in some way itself? Not to complicate it to much but making a 1.5 foot radius around a section corner a no man's land unless all 4 sections are owned by the same person would also solve this, but would take about 1 square foot of private land per corner on each 640 acre section.
A ballot initiative, if successful, could define that corner crossing is not considered "criminal trespass" under state statute But, it would require a change to the US Constitution for corner crossing to not be considered "civil trespass."
I'm crafting a podcast on this topic. It is far more complicated than it seems on the surface. I hired one of the law firms that specializes in these kind of cases and paid them for an opinion on the many facets of trespassing, both criminal and civil. I am thankful I did that, as it opened my eyes a lot wider to true scope of this topic.
I'm crafting a podcast on this topic. It is far more complicated than it seems on the surface. I hired one of the law firms that specializes in these kind of cases and paid them for an opinion on the many facets of trespassing, both criminal and civil. I am thankful I did that, as it opened my eyes a lot wider to true scope of this topic.
Good luck with that.
Thanks for the reply Randy. I do see that but then how does a voter initiative legalize the use, sale, and production of a federally outlawed drug like marijuana?
I guess my main point is it's time to move this out of the legislature's hands and put it right into the voter's hands.
I guess my main point is it's time to move this out of the legislature's hands and put it right into the voter's hands.
I look forward to the podcast. But sorry I can't get this out of my head today. So say the eminent domain is tired on the 18 inch radius of the section corners, then pay the landowners $1000 for each corner in question so just compensation is made. Surely $1000 for a single square foot of land is reasonable. If there is 800,000 land locked acres by no corner crossing, that would be 1250 sections with 4 corners each with a $5,000,000 total price tag. Our state government probably loses that much between the seats of the government cars every year, but I bet many outdoor groups would also be willing to make this revenue neutral.
PS $1000 for a square foot of land works out to over $43 million per acre, nobody can argue that isn't just compensation. Especially if we are only talking about an easement.
PS $1000 for a square foot of land works out to over $43 million per acre, nobody can argue that isn't just compensation. Especially if we are only talking about an easement.
Last edited:
Because smokin' dope isn't covered by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Middleagedbalding
Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2019
- Messages
- 34
What about medicinal corner crossing?
WapitiBob
Well-known member
"2. Marijuana possession, cultivation and distribution and use remain illegal under federal law. The current policy of the U.S. Department of Justice is to discourage enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act in those states that have enacted medical and/or adult use laws consistent with eight prioritized concerns of the federal government, so long as those laws are “robustly enforced.” In January 2017, a new president will be sworn in and federal policy may change. "
Doublecluck
Well-known member
Does anyone know someone who has been cited for corner crossing?
JV842
Well-known member
Really interested in this topic. I can see both sides of it. My grandparents own land in Texas n part of it is on the Medina River which people are legally allowed to access within a certain amount of feet from the water, well, we end up having to pick up all the trash n look at all the carcasses from these “people”
On the other hand it is “our” the public tax payers land. My friends son n I found a beautiful chunk of state land in Montana that we could see from another chunk of state land from. Every afternoon a good herd w a giant bull would go from the private land they fed on to this public land, no way to access it without corner hopping, so didn’t get to make a play on him.
Hopefully something gets straightened out on the rules. We read over them intently w no clear explanation found.
On the other hand it is “our” the public tax payers land. My friends son n I found a beautiful chunk of state land in Montana that we could see from another chunk of state land from. Every afternoon a good herd w a giant bull would go from the private land they fed on to this public land, no way to access it without corner hopping, so didn’t get to make a play on him.
Hopefully something gets straightened out on the rules. We read over them intently w no clear explanation found.
These isolated/landlocked parcels are an expected outcome from the laws that created this property ownership situation. Going back to 1785, it was passed by Congress that newly admitted states would receive Section 16 of every Township for funding of education. That left Section 16 surrounded by other lands that were not State-owned lands. As time passed the amount granted to states was increased. For example, here in Montana, Section 16 and 36 of every Township was granted to the state. That is 2 of every 36 sections in a Township, or 5.6% of all lands would be landlocked as a result of this system. Some of the more arid states got even more than 2 of 36 Sections. That is the history of the isolated state lands.
On the Federal side, there is a similar history that resulted in this strange array of land ownership. The Homestead Acts, The General Mining Act of 1872, and the Railroad Land Grants from 1850-1872, where railroads were given every other Section in a 20-mile or 50-mile swath, for each mile of railroad built. Look at the land ownership along Interstate 80 in southern Wyoming. That is a classic checkerboard stemming from these railroad land grants. Similar incentives were provided to timber and mining companies.
The homesteaders were allowed to stake claims based on the rules of the Homestead Acts and subsequent amendments. Those were usually the most watered and productive lands. That left the arid or unproductive lands unclaimed, retained by the US Government or retuned by homesteaders who couldn't make a go of it on these poorly suited lands. End result is that these less productive lands that were in the hands of the US Government were surrounded by the more productive lands that had homesteaders making claim to. And, the original roads were built to connect homesteaders to the cities/towns, resulting in roads that were mostly over/across private lands, further isolating these public lands.
These events were happening 100-200 years ago, with lands having changed hands many times over that period, and with each subsequent owner paying significant prices (relative to the era) for these lands. Some current owners might use this strange ownership pattern for their own benefit, but they have the right to do that, given part of what they paid for when they purchase the property was the right to control access across their lands, whether to public or other private lands.
Any thought that the Congress or a State is going to somehow impair the value of those lands, via initiative or Legislative/Congressional action or a large scale Eminent Domain claim, is dead on arrival. Such would be a clear violation of the property rights granted these landowners via the 5th Amendment. If you believe in the tenets of the US Constitution, as I do, it is hard to support something that would be such a clear violation of property rights.
As much as I want to see access to all public lands, my perspective is that we are best served to find ways to accomplish such and not infringe on the property rights of the landowners who own lands that control access to the public lands. It is not like a State or Federal agency did this by design. It is not like the original homesteaders or companies receiving the land grants did it to block access to recreationists in the 21st Century.
I would offer that hunters are far better served by supporting full funding of programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increasing support for access easements, working on land exchanges, and the purchase of perpetual easements with willing landowners. It might not solve the problems as quickly as hunters of today would like, but if a long-standing effort was supported, over the course of the next 100 years, a lot of access could be obtained through willing buyer-willing selling agreements.
On the Federal side, there is a similar history that resulted in this strange array of land ownership. The Homestead Acts, The General Mining Act of 1872, and the Railroad Land Grants from 1850-1872, where railroads were given every other Section in a 20-mile or 50-mile swath, for each mile of railroad built. Look at the land ownership along Interstate 80 in southern Wyoming. That is a classic checkerboard stemming from these railroad land grants. Similar incentives were provided to timber and mining companies.
The homesteaders were allowed to stake claims based on the rules of the Homestead Acts and subsequent amendments. Those were usually the most watered and productive lands. That left the arid or unproductive lands unclaimed, retained by the US Government or retuned by homesteaders who couldn't make a go of it on these poorly suited lands. End result is that these less productive lands that were in the hands of the US Government were surrounded by the more productive lands that had homesteaders making claim to. And, the original roads were built to connect homesteaders to the cities/towns, resulting in roads that were mostly over/across private lands, further isolating these public lands.
These events were happening 100-200 years ago, with lands having changed hands many times over that period, and with each subsequent owner paying significant prices (relative to the era) for these lands. Some current owners might use this strange ownership pattern for their own benefit, but they have the right to do that, given part of what they paid for when they purchase the property was the right to control access across their lands, whether to public or other private lands.
Any thought that the Congress or a State is going to somehow impair the value of those lands, via initiative or Legislative/Congressional action or a large scale Eminent Domain claim, is dead on arrival. Such would be a clear violation of the property rights granted these landowners via the 5th Amendment. If you believe in the tenets of the US Constitution, as I do, it is hard to support something that would be such a clear violation of property rights.
As much as I want to see access to all public lands, my perspective is that we are best served to find ways to accomplish such and not infringe on the property rights of the landowners who own lands that control access to the public lands. It is not like a State or Federal agency did this by design. It is not like the original homesteaders or companies receiving the land grants did it to block access to recreationists in the 21st Century.
I would offer that hunters are far better served by supporting full funding of programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, increasing support for access easements, working on land exchanges, and the purchase of perpetual easements with willing landowners. It might not solve the problems as quickly as hunters of today would like, but if a long-standing effort was supported, over the course of the next 100 years, a lot of access could be obtained through willing buyer-willing selling agreements.
Last edited:
antlerradar
Well-known member
My place is far from every one that asks get to hunt, But we have non paying hunters on the property nearly every day from the first of Sept to the first of Dec. That would make for some interesting conversations if I had to tell all hunters that they couldn't hunt the 160 or 320 of BLM we boarder because those tracks of land don't have legal access.
EYJONAS!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,710
I am really thinking that the industries first
#ultralighthangglider could really take-off here.....
#ultralighthangglider could really take-off here.....
EYJONAS!
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,710
Corner crossing is a weird subject, six to one half dozen to the other. What works good for the one accessing I bet doesn't work for the 99 plus percentage of people getting accessed through.......
So regarding the hang glider idea....I have always wondered, how far up in the air do private property rights go? Obviously some as you cannot corner cross even though you would never touch the private land itself. But planes and helicopters are okay. So what is the distance up? Has that ever been settled in law?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I've shared this on here before, but a while back I proposed a strategy to engage in the corner crossing issue in piecemeal way, where the focus could be on maximizing access outcomes bit by bit.
www.hunttalk.com
Corner Crossing: A Solution
This is another thread prompted by the most recent Hunt Talk podcast. In that podcast, Randy did not sound hopeful that the issue of Corner Crossing would be resolved cleanly. I agree. I have been hearing about corner crossing all of my adult life, and I would be willing to bet that 15 years...
www.hunttalk.com
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Corner crossing is sorta like a gated community. Most prefer the gate locked....behind them.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That question also has been cussed and discussed, with uncertainty. Moreover, even if resolved, the approval for landing of aircraft on public lands is not given and varies across public lands. Furthermore, IMO, attempts to "game" the corner crossing issue by some sort of trickery would only serve to exacerbate an already contentious and complex issue, only widening the divide between hunters and landowners.
