Montana voter initiative for corner crossing.

[Straight Arrow]

So let me put it more simply. If I am hunting forest service land south of highway 2 and I'm walking along and cross highway 2 to hunt the forest service land north of the highway I illegally just by default was "hunting" on highway 2? It's the same with a river or stream. Rivers and streams are the highways of the west from before we were even a nation. You can't hunt the highway or streambed but you can use the highways (rivers) to access other huntable land.
I know these legislators have smart attorneys on staff so I have to think they purposely write the laws to be ambiguous or intentionally grey to give more lawyers work later on.
Sorry if there is a separate thread on this, maybe I'll go read it, but I doubt it's a settled matter even if an internet thread has voted on it.

Highway vs Montana navigable stream is a poor analogy IMO. It was not a clarification where "an internet thread has voted on it". It was information from the Montana hunting access regulations and the Montanas stream access law.
You certainly have the prerogative to not believe my point, but in any case I encourage you to research the Montana hunting access regulations, rather than throw out contrived analogies.

BTW, the Montana hunting access regulations are much more straight forward than the corner crossing issue.

 

[JV842]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way my friend’s son (Montana residents) and I (nonresident) read it was that it has to be a navical body of water; not just a trickle of water that “could be a stream” and it cannot be used to access for hunting; just recreation or fishing.
I get the “driving the highway” to get to and from public land. But for me personally it seems to be to vague and not worth the risk of getting myself into a legal sling depending on landowner or wardens.

 

[joelweb]

that doesn't prevent you from using the access to get to an area that you then can legally hunt.

Only if you are participating in a legal activity while using the stream access law, like boating or fishing. It isn't legal to hike down a stream just to hunt, but you could fish or boat down a stream and then switch activities and hunt when you arrive on public land.

Oh, and in Montana, "all flowing natural streams are available to the public for recreation use between the ordinary high water marks without landowner permission"

 

[RobG]

So let me put it more simply. If I am hunting forest service land south of highway 2 and I'm walking along and cross highway 2 to hunt the forest service land north of the highway I illegally just by default was "hunting" on highway 2? It's the same with a river or stream. Rivers and streams are the highways of the west from before we were even a nation. You can't hunt the highway or streambed but you can use the highways (rivers) to access other huntable land.
I know these legislators have smart attorneys on staff so I have to think they purposely write the laws to be ambiguous or intentionally grey to give more lawyers work later on.
Sorry if there is a separate thread on this, maybe I'll go read it, but I doubt it's a settled matter even if an internet thread has voted on it.

We actually talked about this at length, spoke with MT game wardens, etc. To simplify, if you want to access land using a river you cannot walk on the stream bed., you have to float down the river in a boat. The difference is you have a right to use a highway for transportation without restrictions. On the other hand, your right to use a river for transportation over private lands is restricted to water recreation. Bringing it back to the topic, I don't think either is an example of hunting since you were just using it as a route to your hunting spot.

 

[Straight Arrow]

.. use a river for transportation over private lands is restricted to water recreation.

Key phrase. Highway laws pertain to transportation for almost any reason, whereas the stream access laws pertain to "water recreation", essentially boating and fishing, not big game hunting. However, boating to that hunting spot along the Missouri River by passing through a private ranch on both sides of the Missouri would likely not be questioned. But hiking up a waterway to access USFS public lands to hunt big game would be a violation.

 

[Sytes]

That's tricky, SA... The Missouri water route through private... Sure I see the difference though legally, I don't believe there **should be a difference from an enforcement perspective. How is it any different?
It's almost as if we hold different standards for the same application of the law.

<Fictional situation, possibly> A friend and I many years ago put our canoe in at a public access point, routed through private to reach our point of public access for the purpose to reach the other side of the river... Sounds as if by some interpretation, we could have been violating the law...

Not really a corner crossing issue though the impact of the setting represents the ethical/moral dilemma of laws discretionary enforcement and judicial rulings.

 

[Straight Arrow]

How is it any different?

Simple. Boating is water recreation; hiking is not.

... we could have been violating the law...

Not really, as the canoe boating aspect lends to the water recreation qualification of your access.

Not really a corner crossing issue ...

True, but the issue was introduced, statements were flawed, so clarification seemed appropriate. 'Sorry it once again ruffled feathers.

Be calm, Grasshopper.

 

[Hersbird]

So don't "hike" the streambed, bird watch the stream bed. Wildlife photograph the stream bed. Heck, FISH the stream. Certainly that is a water based recreation. Many days hunting I hunt, then switch to fishing, then back to hunting.

 

[RobG]

So don't "hike" the streambed, bird watch the stream bed. Wildlife photograph the stream bed. Heck, FISH the stream. Certainly that is a water based recreation. Many days hunting I hunt, then switch to fishing, then back to hunting.

The idea fails when you have to drag out the animal since your recreation is no longer water based. This doesn't relate to corner crossing and has been covered already... https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/access-state-land-via-river.285590/

 

[Sytes]

So... Going back to SA's thought about routing the river through private in the Breaks area... Fish the way down, bring big game back... Legal or not?
This can be played six days to Sunday.

 

[Straight Arrow]

So don't "hike" the streambed, bird watch the stream bed. Wildlife photograph the stream bed. Heck, FISH the stream. Certainly that is a water based recreation. Many days hunting I hunt, then switch to fishing, then back to hunting.

Hey, we didn't write the law. You're whining to the wrong group. Go whine at your Congressional delegation ... whoever, wherever they are! But leave the Montana Stream Access Law alone!!! It's the best one in the US.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Fish the way down, bring big game back... Legal or not?

Only if you can get the game in your creel ... outa sight.

 

[Sytes]

I think that's the Crux of the issue...

...out-a mind.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Fish the way down ...

And usually some nimrod hopes to "game" the stream access law by fishing up an obscure stream through some private property up to USFS public land to hunt big game.
Your point is well made ... what happens when an elk, moose, or large deer is shot up that stream? Do you then lug it down through the slippery streambed?!!

 

[Sytes]

Could claim fishing for trophy cutthroats meanwhile removing the hook from a bull trout...

From stepping public to public while birdwatching for a few seconds, to motoring the canoe up and down Missouri River for hunting access, eh - fishing with a quartered elk returning through private land split by the river...

Legal ramifications clash with the moral dilemma of those ramifications

 

[RobG]

Since we've drifted off topic, maybe we could stake mining claims near the corners using the 1872 law and then tunnel our way under the corner to the other side.

 

[Hersbird]

The idea fails when you have to drag out the animal since your recreation is no longer water based. This doesn't relate to corner crossing and has been covered already... https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/access-state-land-via-river.285590/

You get tired and hot hauling out that game. If only there was a spot to take off your boots and cool your feet in some fresh water. Would make the job almost recreation.

 

[RobG]

You get tired and hot hauling out that game. If only there was a spot to take off your boots and cool your feet in some fresh water. Would make the job almost recreation.

What's your plan when you tell that to the Judge and he gives you the look that says stop being a jackass...

 

[Hersbird]

What's your plan when you tell that to the Judge and he gives you the look that says stop being a jackass...

Show me one time this has gone to a judge. Even the LEOs questioned admit this is a grey area. Any lawyer worth $100 would destroy a grey area charge like this, then there would be a bunch of pro-bono access right lawyers who would love to appeal a charge higher and take away the greyness all together. The stream law only mentions hunting of people would actually big game hunt IN THE STREAM. The law only applies to what you do in the stream, not what you did before, or what you do after.

 

[onpoint]

Show me one time this has gone to a judge. Even the LEOs questioned admit this is a grey area. Any lawyer worth $100 would destroy a grey area charge like this, then there would be a bunch of pro-bono access right lawyers who would love to appeal a charge higher and take away the greyness all together. The stream law only mentions hunting of people would actually big game hunt IN THE STREAM. The law only applies to what you do in the stream, not what you did before, or what you do after.

Yup. So, stop talkin' and start walkin'. I, for one, will be watching how it plays out. Go get em............................................................