2ski
Well-known member
But by and large the majority of hunters do.
Stealing access in the Crazies
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
But by and large the majority of hunters do.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Having supported PLWA, almost since its inception back in the eighties, I am pleased to say that PLWA has been very successful in preserving many of our established accesses to public land. The dilemma for that organization is that more access issues have continuously been identified than there are resources available to resolve. If you are not a member and you recreate on public lands in Montana, then please step up, join, and provide support.
If you reside in another state with similar access issues, then initiate the development and support of a similar organization for your state.
2ski
Well-known member
What's good for the goose.....
I can get behind that. Actually we need someone to get ticketed and fight it. Because if we are a country where we are innocent until proven guilty, then the landowner should have to prove we trespassed.
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 867
op, I also apologize, getting off track,,,,, this deal in the crazies, why wont a government agency that works for the taxpayers insist on these routes trails ect stay open to public, is there a precedent that says if public access was allowed for X many years, it turns into an legal easement of sorts , don't we have countless lawyers already on state paychecks, let them fight it out and set a precedent, it seems govt agencies take forever to do anything and then its baby steps, not wanting to hurt the private landowner ect,,,,,
I imagine there are many places just like this that slowly silently just fade away,
I imagine there are many places just like this that slowly silently just fade away,
I am more than willing to do this for corner Crossing or hiking where there is a prescriptive public easement, if the citation is a $100 trespassing ticket. But doing it with a harvested animal, and being labeled a poacher and potentially having my licenses revoked is not a risk I'm willing to take.
We need someone with deep pockets that is willing that's for sure.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
^Problem is the ones with deep pockets are on the other side of the argument.
RobG
Well-known member
No problem with getting off track. I believe it goes like this: If the public has used the trail for X years (7?) without permission and with the landowners knowledge then there is a prescriptive easement and the landowner cannot take it back. You'll find many landowners freely giving permission to cross their land, but they require permission. This is to prevent a prescriptive easement from forming.
The problem is that if the landowner decides to close access the Forest Service, not the landowner, have to prove that there was historical use.
The Forest Service does try to work these things out but they have limited resources. The group PLWA is also very important in making sure these things get resolved according to the law.
Rob
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have financially supported PLWA for the last 5 or so years and applaud their effort. I have reservations on pressing prescriptive easements but on the surface this situation seems like it may be appropriate.
JBS
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have financially supported PLWA for the last 5 or so years and applaud their effort. I have reservations on pressing prescriptive easements but on the surface this situation seems like it may be appropriate.
JBS
katqanna
Well-known member
I know a guy, Dale Schafer from Anaconda, who a year ago pushed the corner crossing issue intentionally, not once, but twice and did not have to pay fines. They challenged the FWP Game Warden to write on the citation exactly what law or regulation he was breaking by not trespassing on private lands, but walking on our public lands. None was cited. Dale asked to be shown in the regulation book where the violation was, it was not produced. FWP confiscated the 2 elk the guys got, which was not returned to them, but no citations for corner crossing.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The duration for open use as access is five years in Montana law and openly without the landowner's permission. The criteria seem straightforward in the code, but there are over a hundred prescriptive easement cases, which do provide for some nuances in precedent. The problem is that the party desiring to maintain the easement for access must pursue and prove the circumstances substantiating the claim, then the court must agree and provide a declaratory judgement which establishes the easement for access, with certain definite parameters. It ain't easy, but that's why we should all be so grateful to PLWA.
brownbear932008
Well-known member
It really sounds like the state is taking a hands off approach on this issue. Both established trails and corner crossing for fear of litigation in a later matter is my guess if the case is not founded in court and appeal processes. I think if a land owner pushed hard a citation may be written or said owner told to press his own charges if that can be done in MT. As it can be done in VA. That's just me reading between the lines.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I have not read this whole thread. Just about 3/4 of the first page. Here's my two cents:
Just condemn and pay fair market value pursuant to the 5th Amendment "takings" clause. I think that would be WAY more palatable than trying to do that legislatively, getting sued and having the court call it an unlawful taking. Jeesh, how much can four square feet in the middle of nowhere under ag zoning be worth? WAY less than all the lobbying and litigation and hurt feelings you get from other avenues. There is gonna be some of that anyway so you might as well take the path of least resistance. These landowners get power lines and pipe line and phone lines and etc. shoved down their throat all the time.
Just make sure you finalize what it is you want: corner hopping, or corner driving or . . .? One will cost more than another. But if you support the concept of private property, then honor it.
Just condemn and pay fair market value pursuant to the 5th Amendment "takings" clause. I think that would be WAY more palatable than trying to do that legislatively, getting sued and having the court call it an unlawful taking. Jeesh, how much can four square feet in the middle of nowhere under ag zoning be worth? WAY less than all the lobbying and litigation and hurt feelings you get from other avenues. There is gonna be some of that anyway so you might as well take the path of least resistance. These landowners get power lines and pipe line and phone lines and etc. shoved down their throat all the time.
Just make sure you finalize what it is you want: corner hopping, or corner driving or . . .? One will cost more than another. But if you support the concept of private property, then honor it.
It is unfortunate that state game agencies have lowered them selves to participate in an illegal and unconstitutional form of civil asset forfeiture.
The two times I know of this happening, the meat spoiled in FWPs care. One in a pickup bed, one when a 'freezer broke'. Neither of these two people were ever convicted of a crime.
Poachers should be severely punished. People not convicted, and especially not even charged, should not.
Similar threads
