WY corner hopping is trespass

[schmalts]

. But in my opinion, if there is no monumented corner a person can't guarantee 100% they are not trespassing.

IMO if this is true, then there is no proof they are trespassing either right? If a land owner wants to press charges he should have to show the officer exactly where the monument is and why he feels tresspassing has happened. If a land owner is against corner hopping, he should spend the money to get every corner surveyed accurate enough to have proof at the corner to show the officer at the site.
If a landowner owns property along a road and keeps calling the sheriff and says he has a plate number of a guy who was speeding are they going to issue a speeding ticket even though the land owner has no radar gun? I doubt it, and if he did it would and should get tossed out of court. Same rule of proof should apply in both situations.

 

[SWMontana1]

The only good I can see in this is that it increases the incentive to do something about the checkerboard problem. If government can get its poop in a group they can start swapping land, purchasing access, selling off land locked/off limit public land and only buy accessible land, and plain old get to work on fixing the problem. Unfortunately land exchanges with government get too complicated with this and that law having to be met and becomes a disincentive to do anything.

multiple problems with land swaps for the government.... what I have seen happen is the Forest Service keeps swapping land with Timber companies who log the hell out of the land then swap it back to the Forest Service for new land and the perpetual cycle continues... the Forest Service should have been a lot more careful about swapping land... now those lands are depleted of resouces and animals!!

 

[SWMontana1]

So SWMontana1, are you saying that if the government paid for the road upkeep going through your ranch that you would grant easement through there to allow the public access to the public land that is landlocked? If your answer is yes, I would suggest you contact Fin and let him get the ball rolling to open that land for our use! You might say okay, but the big problem is that most private land owners take advantage of what you are saying and won't grant access even if the government would take care of the access road(s), which obviously gives complete use of the land for hunting for free. Their only cost would be if they graze animals on that land and then the Feds or State that owns it charges per animal unit per month, which is also quite a cheap price IMHO! I wish in those instances the government would use the "eminent domain" clause that would allow them to take control of the road(s) if an agreement can't be reached.

Whoever said I own a ranch?? I own 100 acres....... all I was saying is there is 2 sides to this story.... why should I allow strangers to cross my land (with the potential of poaching on my land and my cabin being broken into and vandalized) when all of that can be avoided by just not allowing people in, much simplier. Plus eminent domain will do nothing for state and school trust lands... especially when I was the one who bought the private easement over 25 years ago to get me, my legal permission to go on both sides of the state land....

As private land owners we should allow access to anyone who wants to drive through our property to get to these "public" lands??? That means these roads will be open 24/7/365 to the public.... that will open all new problems (theft, vandalism, etc)

 

[BuzzH]

Schmalts,

BRI and I went round and round on that very subject as well. I still believe that it would be up to the landowner to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that trespass had occured. The way its supposed to work is innoncent until proven guilty, rural MT and WY? Maybe not so much.

Problems arise with judges, 30+ foot tolerances with hand held GPS units, etc.

Also, many times there isnt a corner monument.

BRI and I had a phone discussion about this thread earlier this morning...the conclusion we came to is that its going to be interesting how all this plays out.

What we discussed in the case of unmonumented corners is:

1. Have it surveyed in, (cost prohobitive), but would solve most problems. Who should pay for it is another problem. We thought if crossing a single corner would gain access to larger tracts, it may be in the best interest of the sportsmen and sporting clubs to pay for it.

2. Skip the costly surveying, rough it in as best you can with both sides signing affidavits, get it notorized and install the corner cheaply.

All that is really getting the cart before the horse. The first thing that has to change is making corner crossing legal.

The other thing we both also would like to see is that any land-locked state, blm, or fs be off limits to any uses by a leasee other than those specific to the lease agreement. In other words, if you lease the grazing rights on a piece of land-locked BLM you should ONLY be allowed to use that land specifically for grazing. The leasee should not be allowed to camp on that land, hunt on it, fish on it, gain access to other private or public land thrugh it, or even hike or ride a mountain bike on it...period. Any violation of that lease agreement should result in loss of the lease, fines, etc.

If they want to allow public access to land-locked BLM then they too could then utilize that same public land for all uses.

This bullshit of owning 300 acres and denying access to 1000's of acres of public has got to stop.

 

[BuzzH]

SW, you shouldnt have to allow access...and you also shouldnt be allowed to recreate on that state land either...fair is fair.

Just for the record, if you tear the dog-snot out of road from your access point into one of the state sections....who is responsible for fixing the road you tear up on the State land?

You paying for it? Not likely.

 

[SWMontana1]

SW, you shouldnt have to allow access...and you also shouldnt be allowed to recreate on that state land either...fair is fair.

Just for the record, if you tear the dog-snot out of road from your access point into one of the state sections....who is responsible for fixing the road you tear up on the State land?

You paying for it? Not likely.

Actually because I own land on both sides of the state land, I have to maintain (and yes pay) for the road all way through otherwise I would not be able to get through...

Since I don't lease the land, I should be able to use it for one recreation... hunting. Right? According to your previous post??

 

[schmalts]

Buzz the Judge is the biggest problem. If he was honest he should abide by innocent until proven guilty. The proof is the BURDEN OF THE PROSECUTION, and that is pretty much the law. If any Judge follows his oath, corner jumping and GPS accuarcy is a mute point if there is no hard survey data at the site.
Since proof is also the burden of the prosectution then land owners should pay for the survey and corner marking if they have a problem with it and try to enforce otherwise

 

[BuzzH]

SW,

Not unless the leasee allows some form of public access...if its not open to the public it should not be open to anybody else either. Lease specific administrative use only...period.

Schmalts,

I tend to agree with you...but I've seen this first hand. I've been running a GPS and had another person running a seperate GPS trying to find a known point. My GPS says I'm standing on that point...the other one says its 30 feet away.

Knowing that error is inherent between units...lets say the landowner has a track on his unit showing I am indeed trespassing. I have a track on my GPS unit showing I'm not. Then throw in the fact that I can be running one set of land-ownership software, the landowner another...even more error.

Then what? Then it comes down to a judge making a decision...and there-in lies the rub...

 

[BrowningBLR]

As a private land owner....... access to land locked public land will never be changed.

 

[BRI]

Schmalts - I agree there is no proof that you are trespassing if there is no monumented corner. Make no mistake, I'm in favor of corner crossing to access our public lands. I just feel the burden is on the hunter to know for 100% certain he isn't trespassing. And a recreational GPS isn't accurate enough at this point. There are many fencelines here that are not on the actual property line either. I don't think it is their responsibility to make sure I know where the actual property line is.

I agree this is going to come to a head soon and I hope it plays out in favor of the sportsmen. I think BuzzH said it best with "I think that the landowners where this could potentially be an issue would be wise to start working with sportsmen and the various agencies".

For State School Trust lands it is written in the Administrative Rules that corner crossing is not a legal means of access. So I believe this will need to play out on federal ground first.

SW..would you please give some specific land exchanges to support that claim?

 

[BrowningBLR]

SW..would you please give some specific land exchanges to support that claim?

Please see RY Timber and the Forest Service in Bridger Canyon.

 

[SWMontana1]

Please see RY Timber and the Forest Service in Bridger Canyon.

Correct!! RY has clear cut and then the Forest Service has bought it back... this goes all the way back to the 70s and 80s!

 

[SWMontana1]

Land locked public land will never be "public land". The state doesn't even have the rights to enter through the private easement nor does the public... so what should the state do with that land? Sell that land to a private party who also will not have access through the private easement? So they will be buying land without acces? there really is no win/win for land locked land for the state..... you can't force eminent domain on access points and private roads. If f the state wants to keep the land, they have no acces.... if they want to sell it, the new buys have no access... they can't do anything but keep it, I guess.

 

[BuzzH]

As a private land owner....... access to land locked public land will never be changed.

Never?

I wouldnt be so sure...its still PUBLIC land...and the public still has the right and authority to pass legislation to change just about anything in regard to public land management. That includes, but is not limited to, lobbying to keep leasee's bound by contract for lease specific uses. To say it cant happen is living in la-la land.

I think landowners and leasees are going to be surprised what happens real soon. GPS technology has changed the game...sportsmen are more aware of their rights, people are fed up with being locked out of THEIR public lands.

The times...they are a changin'

Laffin'....

 

[BRI]

Correct!! RY has clear cut and then the Forest Service has bought it back... this goes all the way back to the 70s and 80s!

it isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. I believe you'd have a hard time finding something recent as there is absolutely no comparison to today's rules and standards.

So now that it is in the hands USFS, isn't that a good thing? Or would you rather it be owned by someone private?

 

[BuzzH]

Land locked public land will never be "public land". The state doesn't even have the rights to enter through the private easement nor does the public... so what should the state do with that land? Sell that land to a private party who also will not have access through the private easement? So they will be buying land without acces? there really is no win/win for land locked land for the state..... you can't force eminent domain on access points and private roads. If f the state wants to keep the land, they have no acces.... if they want to sell it, the new buys have no access... they can't do anything but keep it, I guess.

That happens, the State does keep lands they have no access to...yet.

Apparently you live in a delusional place where laws, regulations, etc. never change?

Landowners are not helping themselves on this issue by being a-holes and denying reasonable access to public lands. The public will only be bullied so far...count on it.

Thats the exact reason this whole corner crossing issue is going to become legal...and the whining from landowners will be heard throughout the West...

Laffin'...again....

 

[SWMontana1]

Never?

I wouldnt be so sure...its still PUBLIC land...and the public still has the right and authority to pass legislation to change just about anything in regard to public land management. That includes, but is not limited to, lobbying to keep leasee's bound by contract for lease specific uses. To say it cant happen is living in la-la land.

I think landowners and leasees are going to be surprised what happens real soon. GPS technology has changed the game...sportsmen are more aware of their rights, people are fed up with being locked out of THEIR public lands.

The times...they are a changin'

Laffin'....

The "public" and legislature are not going to all of a sudden make it legal to cross private land no matter what is behind it.... get real.

 

[SWMontana1]

it isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. I believe you'd have a hard time finding something recent as there is absolutely no comparison to today's rules and standards.

So now that it is in the hands USFS, isn't that a good thing? Or would you rather it be owned by someone private?

It also happened in the late 90s and the effects are still being felt.... too little, too late and the regulations implemented 5 years ago.

http://www.landgrant.org/gallatin-lx.html

 

[SWMontana1]

You're living in a fantasy land if you think Montana or the "west" will ever change/adopt a policy where the public will be able to roam free and cross me land whenever they please because there is a half section of state land behind it... that is delusion, madness, anarchy.

 

[BuzzH]

SW,

Maybe not...but its real easy to write a specific use lease for any tract of public land. I dont care if I personally dont get to use any given piece of public land...as long as nobody else is either, including the leasee (other than for administrative use of the grazing, etc. specific to the lease).

Leasees and private landowners just need to keep pushing...there is always push-back as well...just sayin'.

Maybe you should try hooked on phonics...I never said anything about me crossing your land to recreate on land-locked public...only that you shouldnt be allowed to recreate on that same landlocked public either. Thats very easy to change...through any lease agreement...state or federal.