Rally! Rally! Rally! For access!

[Ben Lamb]

The most interesting thing i saw yesterday was the number of new faces in the crowd. So many younger families and folks under 50 showed up and stood for access. That, i think, is a large part due to Randy's efforts and the efforts of groups like MWF, MSA, MHAA & MBA to engage in new methods of outreach and try to get a younger crowd.

I saw all my old friends, but the amount of young folks was overwhelming.

Well done folks. Legislators are still talking about the event, and the upcoming repercussions.

 

[cowboy]

Well done folks. Legislators are still talking about the event, and the upcoming repercussions.

Just an observation coming from a registered "R" for last 40 years.

I would be a little nervous right now if I was a "R" representative, particularly if I had to run in a tight upcoming election in the future. Can't believe what has happened in our State in the last few leg. sessions concerning sportman's issues. Sad.

Maybe all party affliations ought to be scapped and then you'd have to promote/vote your personal opinion rather than the opinion of the flock. Or maybe you'd vote according to the district/area that you are supposed to be representing - that would be a unique idea.

 

[thecrittergitter]

Maybe all party affliations ought to be scapped and then you'd have to promote/vote your personal opinion rather than the opinion of the flock. Or maybe you'd vote according to the district/area that you are supposed to be representing - that would be a unique idea.

From another "R".........I couldn't agree more...

No more letters behind their names. Vote it how you feel with no discussion with the "flock".

Be interesting to see how many different outcomes there would be.

 

[RobG]

You can see Rep Hill's Corner Crossing blast motion at 2:32:40 at
http://montanalegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=18&clip_id=1935

This is actually pretty interesting. Towards the end when Rep. Hill was closing the camera pans around the gallery and you can see nothing but orange except on the right hand side where the hunters yielded the space to a bunch of boy-scout troops.

 

[Craig S.]

I am not a resident of Montana, but I have been following this topic as closely as I can. I went back and watched the blast, in order to be more informed and I don't think you guys are going to get anywhere in that house.:W: One group claims it is trespassing, because they are pro private property rights. The other group seems to just talk about the rights of accessing public land, because they are pro public property rights (Hill did do a pretty good job). I am for both, but to me it's a common damn sense issue.

Bottom line, as Randy stated, this needs to go to court. It seems as though a ruling in court, will be the only way to establish a black & white law. I listened to the one Republican cite the court cases and talk about it being a grey area. That was any easy way out for any Republicans who perhaps wanted to support this bill, but didn't want to offend their core private property rights creed.

As a non-resident and resident of Arizona, I appreciate all of the sportsmen attending this event.

FYI-this is exactly why I think the political parties are bullshit!

 

[1_pointer]

If all alse fails - Why not push for the public leased land to have a access clause as part of the lease?

Are you referring to grazing leases? If so, I don't think it can/will happen for two reasons:

1. State vs. Federal authority. The corner crossing would be a state issue and a mandatory term/condition on a grazing lease/permit is a federal issue.
2. I'm pretty sure there is case law stating that a clause of that type cannot be a mandatory term and condition. And IMO rightly so as access and permitted grazing are two vastly seperate issues.

 

[Dreamsofdeer]

I really felt fortunate to be at the capitol with my brothers. Justice and fairness are part of the basis for the idea of what our country is meant to be. And those things never come without cost, without effort. Monday was just the beginning. My concerns are not with the corrupt and greedy for financial gain, those people can be beat. Of greater concern to me is the attitude of those I talk with both hunter and non-hunter who don't see the rightness nor even the logic of my arguments. My wanting to access my land that I pay for (in part) seems straight forward to me.Yet I often find that people's gut reaction against corner crossing is that in someway I am taking from someone else, someone's property. They don't understand that even before others procured their private land we owned our public land. It's akin to someone buying the street in front of your house then not allowing you to ever return to your home. I know corner crossing is physically different than that (no private land is actually crossed) but in spirit it is the same thing. How would those ranch owners feel if we fenced our public land, didn't lease the grazing and didn't allow them access to their own deeded land? Obviously that's wrong, in both cases. At both the federal and state level the corrupt have wrested power and feel they have no reason to do what is right by the majority. It's time to roll up our sleeves and work for change. We let this happen so we have to make things right.
I also thought Randy was much shorter than he turned out to be!

 

[sweetnectar]

Dreamsofdeer-You should take some time and study the histories of how some of our public lands became land locked and how much they have cost us or made us. I think you'll find it interesting.

As for corner crossing, I'm assuming your a supporter of private property rights just as much as you are a supporter of public land rights. I still have a problem how both rights are to be met 100%...The fact is I don't see how they both can be met 100% with the issue. It seems one of them will have to lose.
Also, if we didn't lease our public lands (state lands) for grazing the schools would be up in arms over the lack of revenue. I get that not allowing a rancher over our public lands might help them feel what many feel when we can't cross someones land to access public ground, except ranchers already feel that when the neighbor says they can't cross their land.

 

[MattK]

Sweetnectar- Both rights can be met at 100%...by allowing corner crossing, the public has 100% access to public land. Therefore, their right is met 100%. The private property owner on both adjacent sides of the corner still have 100% access to their land as well as 100% access to the public land. Therefore, they too have met the 100% access. The problem as it stands now is the private owner has 100% access to their land and 100% access to the public parcel while hindering the public access to the public land to 0%. The only one losing in the current "gray area" is the public. You can think of it this way also...the private owner never loses access to public land, he only loses private use of public land, which he never should have had in the first place.

 

[Big Fin]

So much of the discussion I read is about who owns the "air space." No body owns that air space. When you buy land, you don't buy the air space. You get the surface rights, the subsurface rights, or both.

That being said, the activities in the air space above your surface rights cannot be such that they would impact your "peaceful enjoyment/quiet enjoyment" of your surface rights. Thus, sometimes airspace activities are restricted by courts to protect the known rights of the surface owner, but that does not transfer ownership of the airspace to that surface owner.

There were some cases cited at the hearing on Monday about someone shooting a shotgun over a neighbor's property. Yes, that can be a problem, as doing so could impact the peaceful enjoyment of the person's surface rights.

The same with the airport cases cited. Planes flying over your house at low levels does impact the peaceful enjoyment of your property rights. Those the cases have come up with some altitude requirements.

That does not mean the surface owner owns the air space up to said altitude. It means that an airplane interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the surface own, by going below the states altitude requirement, is violating.

None of those cases pertain to a person swinging their foot over property. Or, a person carrying an articulating ladder like I have, to climb over a fenced corner.

Thus the reason we have two good law firms both come up with differing opinions on the issue. Ask any of those law firms, what the focus will be in a court case on the topic, and I would bet both would agree that it really comes down to whether or not swinging your foot over the airspace over someone's surface rights infringes on the peaceful enjoyment of their property that represents those surface rights.

I am not an attorney. I have talked to many attorneys about the topic. It always comes to this issue of peaceful enjoyment. I have read many of the cases myself, but not being a legal expert, I am only following along with the logic attorneys have told me.

We can argue until we are blue in the face and it will not matter. The only way is to get a bill out of the legislature and have one side or the other challenge the constitutionality, thereby providing a court case that would settle the issue once and for all.

That is all that was being requested with HB 235. Not sure why a property rights advocate would not want a ruling on when an activity infringes on the peaceful enjoyment of an adjacent surface owner.

Those who say this has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court, are making it up. If it had been ruled on, we would not be here arguing the property right question today. Citing some ancillary outcomes of Supreme Court cases with different facts and different contexts is hardly the equivalent of the Supreme Court ruling on this issue.

 

[JLS]

You are correct Randy. This has not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. It was an opinion from the AG's office that determined that corner hopping was illegal because it constituted trespassing.

 

[BRI]

If it is deemed the airspace is private, then I'm going to have to tell the neighbor to prune his trees that have branches infringing on my property. Oh and my neighbors better not shoot any fireworks that may invade my airspace either. That sure would suck for MY PRIVATE AIR SPACE to be infringed upon

 

[Dreamsofdeer]

Sweet nectar, thank you for your thoughtful reply. First, where would i access information about the history of some parcels came to be landlocked? Secondly, my reference to leasing rights was meant as you percieved, an illustration of how the public's situation is, not being allowed access, not as an even remotely practical ploy in this sensitive matter. Again thank you.

 

[TBass]

So much of the discussion I read is about who owns the "air space." No body owns that air space. When you buy land, you don't buy the air space. You get the surface rights, the subsurface rights, or both.

70-16-101. Rights of owner in fee -- above and below surface. The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You should take some time and study the histories of how some of our public lands became land locked and how much they have cost us or made us. I think you'll find it interesting.

sweetnectar, 'not sure what history you are referring to, but most of the checkerboard array of public lands resulted from the Railroad Land Grant of the 1860's. Private entities (railroads) were ceded federal lands as incentive to develop railways west and to settle the West. The every-other-section lands in these corridors were then sold, resourced (timber for rails & trestles, mining, etal) and later changed hands. It would be difficult to make an argument that those every-other-section public lands then were to be no longer used or accessed by the public or were no longer federal lands. Unfortunately the landlocked sections evolved into parcels with no access (except perhaps across corners, don't we wish?) and became used, protected, and viewed by adjacent private entities as their own property.

We, the public, merely want foot access to once again trod on our own lands, without the private guy next door screaming about trespassing in the couple of feet of airspace above his corner ... at the same time his outfitter is advertising thousands of acres of National Forest full of trophy wildlife with his exclusive access for those willing to dole out the fees.

 

[sweetnectar]

Straight Arrow- That is the history I'm refurring to. Then there are the school trust lands, and land that no one wanted durring the homestead act, the new lands purchased buy habitat funds, and so forth. I think it would be good if we all understood the history of how these lands came to be.

 

[TBass]

It would be difficult to make an argument that those every-other-section public lands then were to be no longer used or accessed by the public or were no longer federal lands.

That very premise spurred Congress to pass the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act.

 

[Toadslayer]

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for [for] whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is theirs all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell)

Many take this too literally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos

 

[Pierre]

Folks, somewhere in these threads is a question or two about how to help the groups who are spending their time and money in sportsmen's behalf. Please consider a donation to MWF who has 2 folks lobbying pretty much full time. Please consider the MSA pac who has about 6 very active volunteers who spend 2-4 days a week representing sportsmen. Please consider PLWA who fights year round for your right to access public lands. They have the balls to take it to court and you must realize that takes big bucks....there are no sugar daddies...its just us. There are several deserving groups working hard on your behalf. Please consider doing your share by helping financially and by going to the work to call or email legislators when needed.

 

[Pierre]

Sorry. MBA has also been a very valuable partner at Helena this session. Joelle and Jerry has certainly stood up for bowhunters and sportsmen and have been successful.