Please get on your house reps about this. Corner hopping is getting attacked again. They want to make it law that you can't go from public to public via corners. We have over 750,000 acres of OUR land that is inaccessible because of these corners. Tell these guys to stop bringing these bills forward and lets shut this one down. Currently it's been a vague rule that is being decided on a case by case basis by a judge. It's a tough one to prosecute and does need to be clarified but this bill is not a good solution. It will lock us out of a ton of public land, that you and I own. I'm not good with links but I'll try another post with email address to send to. Thanks
Missouribreaks, why would you say that? Are you a landowner who has locked up public land for your own private use?
Sure, it is all "owned by the public". But that doesn't guarantee access over or through private property to reach it. There is no "should" in this issue. The only question is whether local LEO will press trespassing charges. If you access it you are no different than an illegal immigrant crossing the border to reach a trailer he owns in Nogales.
You guys should focus your efforts on changing the law to allow corner hopping, not on trying to prevent the law from being enforced.
JLS's Link
Pryor and Kentuck, there is no "should", except that the sportsmen in Montana "should" press for a state law that allows it. Please reference the federal law that guarantees access to public land. I'll go ahead and make popcorn.
Your argument is without merit. The landowner who surrounds the checkerboard land has legal access to said checkerboard via the property he/she owns. That is no different than any other legal point of access such as a county road, legally accessible trail, navigable waterway, etc.
Jaq,
I anticipate Hell would be frozen over before the Montana legislature would entertain the idea of legally allowing corner hopping, or access of a similar nature. It's long been a nebulous issue as whether or not it REALLY was a trespass. Looks like they're trying to eliminate that ambiguity.
Would also take a massive amount of legal surveying to locate and identify exact corners, a gps is not that accurate. How far can one stray from a corner, hard to hop with an animal on your back so some amount of trespassing would have to take place, how much is allowed? And no, I do not own any private land by a checkerboard, does not involve any of my lands whatsoever.
Who repairs fence damage if applicable? Who is legally responsible for personal injury taking place at a corner, homeowners policy?
Just a little bit of trespassing is sorta like only putting the tip in.
Kentuck, it sure does apply to you as co-owner, so long as you have legal access from any other public land or easement if you don't cross private to do so. People pay a lot of money to buy land with access to checkerboard, landlocked, or difficult access USFS.
The law on this is clear. Just depends on whether the local jurisdiction is willing to enforce it. Mine certainly is willing.
You are comparing apples to oranges in your example. As a public land user, you are not granted the right to cross private land to get to adjoining public land, which the Causby decision supported. The private landowner who owns inside of a checkerboard has unfettered legal access to the public land because there is nothing that restricts him from freely crossing his to the public, back and forth. A more applicable comparison would be if I purchased a section of land that joined my current holds ONLY at a corner. Without an access easement from the other adjacent landowner(s) I would not be able to access my land at that corner without trespassing.
Personally, I feel if you are crossing at a corner monument, and simply step over and onto the adjacent public land it's a pretty bullshit trespass charge. Some states would agree with me and others would not.
Missouri breaks - "Where does it end? Can I then buy private and hop from my private to my checkerboard private across another's private corner? " I would argue yes if the corners connect. Otherwise, why would you even own that other parcel? YOU have no access to it!!!
Missouri Breaks -"Is it only for hunters, or can gas and oil companies and antihunting greenies do the same? Who can hop and what are the parameters? Can we hop in subdivisions?" What? This has nothing to do with WHO can access it. But yes to play your game, anti hunting greenies can also access the same public lands that you and I own as they are also owners too. Oil companies are already not allowed to just go in and drill and are held to a whole other set of standards regarding public land. This has nothing to do with that. Are you saying only some people should be able to access public land, only those who share your opinions or beliefs? This is not about who and I don't see why it would matter what people are doing whether there to hunt, take pictures, go for a hike or whatever. Obviously drilling oil and mining are entirely different.
Missouri- "Would also take a massive amount of legal surveying to locate and identify exact corners, a gps is not that accurate. How far can one stray from a corner, hard to hop with an animal on your back so some amount of trespassing would have to take place, how much is allowed? And no, I do not own any private land by a checkerboard, does not involve any of my lands whatsoever."
GPS is pretty damn accurate and that has been held up in court. It also should be the responsibility of the landowner have there land properly marked if they want to make sure people stay off it. Many of the old fences that are up are currently in the wrong place and that has been proven. I don't see why there would have to be a trespass at all. Get to the corner, take your pack off, drop on the other side and then "hop" on over. Assuming your carrying a heavy load. Otherwise, just hop on over. I personally don't take issue with an easement of some sort at corners but that's not what this is about. You guys.......This bill is specifically addressing PUBLIC to PUBLIC corners!!! Obviously private land corner that shares public land corner would require permission from the landowner. I am a huge proponent for land owners and their rights. Just as I am a huge proponent for being able to access the land I as a taxpaying citizen own. Especially if you never actually touch the private land during the crossing of the corner. In MT it has been left up to the judges to rule in each case. It's very difficult to prosecute as the law states you have to actually catch the guy in the act and on the private land. Theres been a lot of cases thrown out. We do need to have it clarified and in NO circumstance am I ok with trespassing being forced on landowners. Hell I hope to be a landowner someday and will ask for the same respect that I currently give them. Public land should accessible as long as it's continuous and that corner should become an access point in my mind. Agree or disagree on that is one thing but either way this bill is not a solution.
JLS- I agree, it's a pretty weak trespass that's for sure. However, currently it would probably be prosecuted as trespass none the less. Assuming you could catch the guy in the act and prove it.
I don't get your point. If I bought land that had access to National Forest that would be great. But if I bought land specifically because I saw that that the corners of two parcels of the land blocked the public from public land -under the corner hopping law- and people did it anyway, I would have to admit that my greedy attempt to keep exclusive use of public land did not work. I bought two parcels in hopes of actually gaining the ONLY access to much more land that I did not buy.
Maybe a solution would be for the government to buy a right of way over any contested corner. I calculate that a ten foot by ten foot square plot of land (100 sq feet) would be 0.00229 acres. So even at $10,000/acre that would be ~$23. Better yet, trade the landowner an equal size piece of the public land at no cost. The public gets the corner, and the landowner gets an equal size piece. Force the trade using Eminent Domain. Landowner should have no gripe unless the corner is exactly what he wanted, i,e, to block public access.
Scoutin'- You bet! Just an FYI- I've said this before but I'll say it again. Please join up with your local Bowhunters Association and get involved. They are the ones who sent all of us an email regarding this bill and every other one that affects us. They also gave all the emails to send to. I didn't do anything other then forward that on. My point is they are working to preserve and maintain the things we enjoy. Compound/recurve, rifle.....it doesn't matter. This is an issue that affects everyone and the Montana Bowhunters Association is making an effort on all of our behalf. Please take the time to support them and join up. I'm constantly harping on joining up precisely because of issues like this. Meanwhile someone is so pissed off about a lighted knock or some other single issue they don't agree on that they will quit. The bigger picture is what we need to focus on. We won't have the luxury of fighting over weapons choices in the future if we don't come together.
sawtooth's Link
No one should give two shits about a mans toes crossing a line of private property to get on the public property yet they try to sell it as a trespass, a violation of private property rights, when in fact it's nothing more than greed.
I wonder how laughable it would be if I asked the sheriff department to cite my neighbor with trespass because he mowed 42 blades of my grass along the property line.
Instead, I bought 2 acres for $40,000 that offers access to a whole lot more contiguous National Forest with difficult public access from the other direction. And we still have to chase out yahoos trying to drive in across our private roads to hunt because of some mistaken belief that the public has the "right" to access any and all public land by any means they want, including crossing private, posted land.
You're right that outfitters lease every other section in some areas and effectively double their hunting area. I don't like that either, but it is what it is under land use law.
In another nearby area the state and USFS bought dozens of these private sections to make it all contiguous. That is what needs to happen. Otherwise, unless you find a USGS or survey corner pin you will absolutely be trespassing, now matter how you try to justify it (never mind the rule upheld by USSC about corner-crossing being prohibited). GPS's are not accurate to the inch. Our sheriff told me they don't have to catch you in the act of corner hopping to prosecute. Rather, if you are in there the burden of proof is on you to show how you got there.
I hope Montana gets this passed. My point is that the law is what it is now, and unless it is specifically legalized by a bill, it's still illegal.
For those unfamiliar with how this checkerboarding happened, most of it was a public-private partnership with the railroads which gave them access to logging every other section for railroad ties if they purchased the odd sections. Once the railroads were built the railroad companies sold the land since it held no value to them anymore.
If not I see where you would be upset that people thought they were entitled to trespass on you merely because you bordered public land.
Just corner hopping should be made legal tho IMO.
Where we ended up buying is part of an inholding inside National Forest where all the property owners can access the NF in multiple spots from our private roads, but the general public has to access from public roads miles away. So regular folks aren't shut out, they just have to work harder to get to our side. OTOH, we have to work harder to get to their side. :) But we always have problems with people who assume we can't keep them off our private roads if the private road leads to NF. That's an issue. Last year we even had a new sheriff's deputy who argued with me and said we have to let the public cross our private roads to reach the NF. I went over his head to straighten that misperception out.
Then a couple years ago we had an overzealous NF LEO who decided to shut down our ATV access onto legal designated ATV roads within the NF unless we also allowed the general public to access from our property. We had a contentious meeting and pointed out that the public can ride right up to our boundary from the other side, and we can cross right there legally from our property and road. So she had the backhoes and dozers come in and build big berms to try to keep us out. Total overreaction and waste of NF resources. ATVs go over berms easily......
I also agree that corner hopping should be legal IF the actual corner can be ascertained. Without a surveyor or a USGS corner post, that's a real challenge.
Jaq- "Our sheriff told me they don't have to catch you in the act of corner hopping to prosecute. Rather, if you are in there the burden of proof is on you to show how you got there." That's not the case in MT. The law states you must catch them in the act. Most judges are throwing it out right now so they are trying to clarify it. It's impossible to prosecute as it's written. Sounds like your situation in CO would not be affected by this Jaq. You are referring to Private land with access to public. I am referring to public land that shares a corner with other public land. Seems reasonable to me. Your telling me it's ok to landlock public land but is it ok to landlock private land? Please explain why if that's the case. I have a lot of respect for what you say Jaq. I've learned a lot about elk hunting through your hunts and comments on other posts. I understand being a landowner and hope to be one someday too. However, public land is public land and if people are willing to walk, I think it should be accessible if it connects. This is something that has gone astray in my mind. Yes it would screw some folks who bought land for the reasons you stated. They would now be forced to "share" the land we all own with the rest of us. Sorry, but I don't feel bad about that. It should be available.
The parcel I considered was at a checkerboard corner. Someone crossing would either have to cross my property or the property on the other side. There is no question about that according to the USSC. The Department of The Interior specifically states that it is not legal in their policy document. The only question is whether a local jurisdiction chooses to enforce it, and whether a court challenge by the corner-crosser will hold up locally. "Intent" has been the determinant in other cases. Our CPW doesn't press charges on corner-crossers because they can't prove intent to hunt on the private. That's why they leave it to the sheriff, because there IS intent to cross private property to reach the public on the other side.
You keep saying "should". That's a personal opinion, and understandable, but "should" has no bearing on "is" when it comes to the law. I've been studying this issue for decades because there are hundreds of checkerboard sections around where I live and I'd love to access them. The Leo case In the USSC determined that there is no legal easement across corners. As I understand the Montana proposal, it simply affirms that Montana will enforce the laws on the books already.
Now, if MT wants to pass a law telling local jurisdictions not to prosecute, good for them. CO voters did that with pot, legalization of which violates federal law but it's working so far.
However - and this is a BIG one- if Montana were to do something like this, there will immediately be a bunch of lawsuits filed against the state because changing the law after the fact clearly violates the "takings clause" of the 5th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has already upheld in the Leo case.
I believe it should be legal but I recognize that if it were to simply be changed, it would hurt folks who just followed the rules when they bought the property. Would have been simple enough to put in place when the west was being staked out, but I doubt it was an issue given much thought. Different times. Now if its made legal, it will certainly be unfair to landowners who's land value drops. If its not made legal, there is certainly an argument that it is and has been unfair to everyone else.
It is trespassing, but its also a bit riduculous. If a rancher is standing on the public side of his fence while stretching some new barbed wire, should we demand he gets a ticket for operating a commercial business on National Forest without a permit? If one of his steers puts his head through the strands to take a bite of public grass, should he be fined for not having a grazing permit?
Glunt- Well said! "It is trespassing, but its also a bit riduculous. If a rancher is standing on the public side of his fence while stretching some new barbed wire, should we demand he gets a ticket for operating a commercial business on National Forest without a permit? If one of his steers puts his head through the strands to take a bite of public grass, should he be fined for not having a grazing permit?"
Either way, we will find out soon enough. I believe they vote today to see if it makes it out of committee. I'll keep you guys informed on what they do. Thanks for your emails to the reps to those of you who took the time.
Gps is accurate enough that it holds up in court against trespass tickets when landowners fences are not where they are supposed to be so I see no reason why I can't find a corner and step from public to public.
If landowners were really that concerned about loss due to trespassing on their land they would mark these corners, but, that's not really the issue is it.
Tradmt, not sure of the posting law in MT but in CO a property owner is not required to post land to prohibit trespassing. I do know of some corners that are posted (and have game cams hidden). If you can find a corner pin and photograph it, as some have done who've fought this in court, you have a pretty good chance of having a sympathetic judge rule your way.
Tradmt, not sure of the posting law in MT but in CO a property owner is not required to post land to prohibit trespassing. I do know of some corners that are posted (and have game cams hidden). If you can find a corner pin and photograph it, as some have done who've fought this in court, you have a pretty good chance of having a sympathetic judge rule your way.
For those who've gone to public schools in the past 30 years since Food Justice replaced American History, these checkerboard sections were never intended to have public access for recreation. They were granted for timber and resource extraction by adjacent landowners.
They became USFS and BLM many years later after those agencies were created and there was nobody else to manage them. But nowhere does it say in the Act that there should be public access.
In regard to how much air you can own, I don't have the exact words but the Supreme Court ruled that the landowner is entitled to own as much of "the air" as can be reasonably used. Otherwise tall buildings, etc. couldn't be built and the landowner couldn't make reasonable use of the land.
I agree that blocking corner-crossing doesn't seem fair and should probably be legal but as Lou pointed out, it isn't. SBH, you keep saying that this isn't about private land, it's about public to public. The problem is that if you are crossing private land then it is also about private property rights. You can't acknowledge/protect/assert public property rights and ignore private property rights at the same time. The public has the right to use the public land but the private landowner also has the right to use and defend his/her land and has the right to the enjoyment of all of the rights that accompany that land ownership, one of which is the enforcement of ownership of a "reasonable amount" of airspace. The Supreme Court has affirmed that.
If you pass a law that forces private landowners to provide an easement, then you are forcing an uncompensated taking which thankfully has been ruled unconstitutional.
Eminent Domain laws are complicated and there is a lot more that comes into play than just a calculation of the cost of the land, so the $23 calculation for the easement is probably not very realistic. I've dealt with Eminent Domain in the past and in some places the laws have been revised to protect private landowners from heavy-handed government interests. Compensation is based on much more than just land value.
Also, in regard to using GPS to find property corners, a GPS does not "know" where a property corner is. A GPS is simply a measuring too. Consider yourself lucky if your consumer grade handheld receiver measures accurately within a few meters. Survey grade GPS has sub-centimeter accuracy but those units cost $10,000 plus and the software and other equipment needed ends up costing more like $50,000 or more. Even then, a survey grade GPS does not "automatically" know where the property line or corner is. GPS is just a measuring tool that allows the surveyor to measure accurately, quickly and easily. The surveyor still has to analyze the evidence and determine where the boundary line is just the same as if he/she was measuring with any other surveying equipment such as a transit/theodolite and tape measure (chain) or electronic distance meter (EDM), etc.
If your GPS receiver has a map database that shows property lines, those property lines were not created in the database based on an actual land survey. The mapping databases within GPS receivers are created using a compilation of different mapping sources. The maps in your GPS receiver showing property lines are approximate at best. In some places the property lines might be surprisingly close and in other places they could be hundreds of feet off.
Think about it... How much does it cost to have your property surveyed and determine where your corners and lines are? It could cost anywhere from $500 to $50,000 or more depending on a lot of factors. So if you think that Garmin USA paid to have every single property line surveyed and then put all that information into a GPS mapping database for free or a minimal charge then I have a bridge I would like to sell you... In reality, Garmin and the creators of other GPS mapping databases gathered a lot of free mapping information from various government sources and assembled it to create their GPS maps. Those maps have varying degrees of accuracy and most of them were not created based on actual land surveys or actual locations of corner markers. The basis of most of those maps is what is known as GIS (Geographic Information System). Most GIS databases are approximate and were developed to aid tax assessors in collecting taxes; they had nothing to do with surveying... I know because a big part of my last 30 years has been spent involved with the creation and maintenance of a county-wide GIS database.
In regard to flying and ownership of airspace (I'm also a pilot), the FAA does not own the airspace above your property, it regulates it. A landowner has rights to that airspace subject to FAA regulations. Just like a landowner might own the bed of a body of water subject to the DNR water regulations. In a sparsely populated area, except for during takeoff and landing you can't fly closer than 500' from a person, dwelling or vessel without permission. The minimums are greater in more populated areas.
I don't think the 40 acre checkerboard areas are the real issue. However, when you have say a 5000 acre solid public land chunk that is being used exclusively by a landowner who is not paying tax on the land, either he should be forced to buy it or allow public access if there is a corner.
There is no take from the private property nor its owner, in fact it's just the opposite. It's equivalent to the mailman reaching his arm over the property line to put mail in the box, or the bagger on the neighbors lawn mower hanging over the property line as he mows his lawn.
I guarantee this would be a non issue if not for outfitters.
I'm driving down the county road. I see an elderly farmer crawling around next to his tractor. I stop and walk to the fence.
"Howdy"
"Howdy"
"Looks like you lost something, can I help?"
"Its my dang spectacles. Can't see worth a darn without them"
I see his glasses and point to them.
"Is that them on the hood of your tractor?"
"Well, sure is."
He puts on his glasses and now that he can see, he notices my "Hillary for Prison 2016" T-shirt.
He's a big Hillary fan for some reason and throws a fit cussing at me as I walk back to my truck. I go on my way. A couple miles later the Sheriff stops me.
"Howdy"
"Howdy"
"Were you just talking to Mr Jones?"
"If he's the older gentleman who lives a couple miles back, wears glasses and likes Hillary, yes"
"He wants to press trespassing charges."
"Ok, I just walked to his fence, stayed on my side and helped him find his glasses."
"He says when you pointed his glasses out to him, your arm crossed over on his side of the fence."
"..........Um, well...yep that would be true. You got me. Truth be told, I may have even leaned on a fence post for a few seconds. Now what do we do?"
"Well, you go on your way and I'll report back to Mr Jones that you slipped by me somehow. Then I'll talk to Lucille that runs the switchboard and let her know to take a message the next time Mr Jones has a hot case for me"
"Sounds good, have good day"
"You too, sorry for the hassle and I like the shirt."
Should adjoining land owners be held to the same standard if there cow sticks it's head through the wire or plows through the fence.
Landlocked parcels are a shame too and we are basically giving them to folks willing to lease the surrounding private parcels. But in the case of checker-boarded corners, I just don't think it's going to hold up to scrutiny as land use pressure increases.
You know, this really hits home! Locking people out of public ground is BS in my book.
tradmt you wrote:
"...what you all need to realize is that corner hopping, which means placing your feet, one foot at a time, from one public section to another public section without physically touching the ground of the private land, is not a private property rights issue. There is no take from the private property nor its owner, in fact it's just the opposite."
You are correct that stepping over the corner is not a "taking" but nobody ever said that stepping over is a taking. However, if the private landowner is forced to give an easement, that is a "taking" and according to the U.S. Constitution, private land cannot be taken by the government without compensation.
Although stepping across a corner is not a "taking", it is a trespass and therefore it is a private property rights issue. The situation deals with both public property and private property so you can't claim that you have public property rights while ignoring the private property rights.
You can think of it this way. The size of the exact center of the point that defines the location of the boundary corner is infinitesimal. The landowners on all four sides of that point own up to the center of that microscopic point and they have rights to the airspace on their side of that point. If a landowner decides to build a 100 foot high wall (to keep immigrants out or whatever) along his line and up to that point, as long as he doesn't violate some kind of zoning/land use regulation or other law he has the right to do so. If the landowner has the right to build a wall or fence on his property, he also has the right to keep people from crossing it or to keep them from crossing the land that he could build the wall on. It's his land and his wall and he has that right.
The examples of the mailman, the lawnmower bag and the cow sticking its head through the fence are all examples of permissive use. People trespass all the time with permission and there are also stupid lawsuits that happen all the time to stop some of those activities. The cow is trespassing and will continue to do it until he is forced to stop. Just because nobody cares in that situation does not mean the cow is not trespassing.
The difference is, with the corner-crossing scenario, somebody does care. If a person owns private property they also have the right to build on it and keep people from trespassing.
If the rancher is standing on the public side of the fence while stretching some new barbed wire, he has just as much right to be there as you do trying to kill an elk because it's public land. As long as his fence is not over the line he hasn't done anything wrong and he's not operating his business on National Forest. He has the same rights to use the public land as you do; he's standing on it to tend to his fence and you're standing on it to tend to your elk.
Also, Eminent Domain does not happen with the wave of a magic wand. The taking has to be for a public purpose and the cost of the legal proceedings has to be justified. Taking of an easement to access public land is a public purpose but the cost of taking it might be disproportionate to the value of the easement taken.
Wrong as he is actually conducting commercial business on that ground. I care if his cow eats my, or our, grass. This BS can go on forever.
Takes a damn dark and greedy soul to keep an American citizen from enjoying the land they equally share rights to IMO.
MBA MEMBER ALERT: The hearing for HB 566 Corner Crossing Trespass bill was cancelled today 3/7/17. It is being referred back to committee. Stay tuned and thanks for your participation.
Just got this email from the Montana Bowhunters Association. So carry on with the debate gents, looks like we'll have a few more days to go back and forth:) In the meantime, I'm gonna email the reps that responded to me and see what it means to go back to committee and what they think will happen with this. Stay tuned......
I was unable to post this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Now this was just a Wikipedia link, so take it with a grain of salt, but it is a reasonable summary. Cases differ, but it is possible that with this precedent, a transfer of land from a private owner to the public, especially if it was an even trade for adjacent land, could possibly be upheld. The value of the corner over a similar piece nearby would, let's face it, only be greater due to its use in blocking off public land for private use.
Eminent Domain is generally used when it is deemed to be "for the greater good".
I've been reading here about how "citizens" don't really know where the property boundaries are, etc. But I would bet a great many of the private property lines that have been established on these huge land holdings are wrong as well. Could very well be the GPS ownership boundaries are the ones who are accurate and not the boundary established by the landowner. Some were established a 100-150 years ago or more. I know cases where ranch houses and such were actually built on public land. Also ranchers aren't well known for erring on their side when it comes to building a fence..... and sometimes a fence or a road is a son of a gun to build in a straight line.....
Eminent Domain and create a small easement or ROW specifically for corner crossing on foot. Simple. Could be a case by case basis if need be. Or done as a general law allowing corner crossing on a federal level. (most being fed land) Make it one sq yard so no vehicular traffic. But it is undeniably in the public interest, it is to access and travel on public land by the public. Laws as such are made all the time. There is a law here in HI that property owners on beachfront have to allow a marked public access and ROW to the beach, they cannot block off and make what is a public beach (up to a historic high water line) their own private beach. Haleakala Ranch on Maui just was forced to open a ROW of a couple miles if I recall for a trail right through the middle of their working cattle ranch because it was proven in court to be a "traditional" and "historic" use by the public.
I'll bet in many cases the property owner will co-operate and allow it at some place or another because if it comes down to surveying there's a good chance they are going to have to remove and/or realign a fence or access road of their own.
Better to live in a world of "what is" and work to change it via the legislative process, or hope your local LEO's adopt a "look the other way" policy.
Cheesehead Mike nailed it from the "what is" perspective. And 40 acre checkerboards don't exist. They are all one section or larger, and we're talking hundreds of them on which to acquire easements. That's why the easement idea is unworkable except In specific instances.
I don't like the law either but I understand why it exists.
Zeke gets it with his example of the fence corner post and instead of a fence corner post it could be a high wall. Like it or not the landowner has the right to prohibit trespassing whether he's damaged by it or not.
TD, there's more to determining property boundaries than measuring with a GPS or even reading a deed. People sometimes acquire property rights based on longtime occupation of the land. A house or fence that has been in the same place for 100-150 years probably falls into that category and some Bowsiter with a $200 GPS is probably not going to have much luck telling the rancher that a fence that has been there for 150 years is in the wrong place. That's also why surveyors are licensed, there's more to it than knowing how to measure.
WVMountaineer, you can't shoot down drones for the same reason you can't shoot down airplanes or shoot somebody walking across your lawn, it's illegal.
We had an $800,000 judgment against us and lost our insurance after a trespasser dove out of a tree (with a No Trespassing sign nailed to it), into 2 feet of water, and broke his neck.
See how that plays out. In MT I don't know if possible, the big landowners seem to have the game & fish in their back pocket in many cases. Maybe not. They do have a decent block access program if I recall.... I kind of forget how that all worked. Doesn't seem to include the crossing issues.
WRT how accurate the property owners view of exactly what they own..... I can't count the number I've seen of roads and fences, structures even, that were in the WRONG property and had to be moved after an actual survey. And MANY cases of landowners claiming to own land they didn't, they simply treated it as it was. Having had sole use of it for so long do they now actually own it? Then what would it matter, the boundaries?
I remember in the 70s floating a river in CA (legal navigable water, a good sized river) through private property to access a public land block to hunt deer and having a shotgun drawn on me and my buddy while standing on that public land with the property owner claiming it was his. And his buddy the sheriff I went to after being run off at gunpoint telling me yeah, I was right and legal..... but the guy had lived there his whole life and saw it as his place and I should just drop it all and leave it go...... I was so mad I could have spit nails. Go pizz up a rope. Then told it wouldn't be in my "best interest" to force the issue. No love here for some azz that thinks he "owns" that block and treats it as such. None at all.
Have nots? They are citizens and that is everyone's public land. It is NOT private land. They do NOT have a deed on it. Just some legal BS that claims they can block off the public from public land. That can be remedied.
All I have heard is "too much trouble", "too expensive",etc. etc. as to WHY these people can block the public off of public land. Honestly..... if that was exactly the purpose... I have zero empathy for them. If the land is NOT public land then why is it legal to access it by other means than corner crossing? The public property folks would be crossing FROM has exactly the same rules and regulations as to public use. Why should the exact same type of block public property not have the same public use if the public had what anyone with common sense would see as a logical point of access?
If honestly the owners are ranchers, loggers and working the land....... it shouldn't be an issue. They still have full access and permitted use I'm sure. It should not effect them, not at all. If OTOH the whole purpose was to close off hunting so they could sell hunts or lease PUBLIC land for PAY hunters to hunt on as their own..... they can pound sand. If they own the land that's different. Public land..... no. Not leased out at the exclusion of the public who technically own it. How exactly is it they can "buy" that right? Because some realtor told them so? They paid a lot of money for it? Money does not buy rights.
Been there when I HAD legal access. And still run off. And been witness to dozens who thought they had private beaches and restricted access of what are public beaches.... because they paid a lot of money for it. The fact they argued in court there was public access..... from the ocean..... didn't fly. They had to give public access that didn't require a boat (or aircraft) and we're talking 10 million+ an acre. Not to mention the multi million dollar resorts they built on that land and private estates. That's pretty premium if you ask me, and they fully expected to create their own exclusive private beaches.... on public land. Honestly don't care what they paid for it or how much of an inconvenience it was for them..... they had no right to block the public from publicly owned land. Courts forced them to create access. Had to let the riff raff in.... and all without having to pay them for that exclusive "privilege".
We ARE talking about a walk in, step by step corner crossing where literally both feet never leave public land, not true access to private property. "Air space" and "good faith" my wrinkles..... it's a BS scam any way you slice it. For now, yes.... it is technically "legal" That can be fixed.
It can be done, one way or another if enough pressure is put on. Rich ranchers only have so many votes, no matter how many politicians they buy. Even if it would effect those who would benefit monetarily or otherwise from the status quo. They might have to live with somewhat less than "exclusive" use of public land to offer their paying clients or buddies to hunt. I'm not feeling a great deal of sympathy. It's not ranching, timber or any other TRUE traditional use to make a living off the land that would be effected at all. It's literally selling the hunting rights to public land for private gain.
While the deer hunting here in the North East is pathetic compared to much of the country, and maybe for this reason, our pretty amazing land access laws (at least in MA and NH (I believe it's still the case there) where local town rules have not taken over really are amazing for sportsmen.
If it's not posted, it's legal here. Over the years I've noted that on a few threads on various forums and guys from around the country lose their marbles at the blasphemy - when to those of us from here, it's just normal.
Reading about this corner hoping thing... While I can see the challenges, it feels like there ought to be some level of nuance to things which is still clearly definable. I mean, if there is a corner, technically the two bits of public ground connect and literally ZERO tresspass would occur.
The glitch is that no human or human system operates in a vacuum, so it's hard to be sure where the corner is with absolute precision. Thus, a simple solution - accept the short falls and if people clearly have made an attempt to cross the corner they are fine. If someone clearly was using the private land, they are trespassing. What's use? hunting, fishing, biking, etc.
I guess this doesn't seem hard to me. But, like I said at first, I come from a region with a very different history of land use which is very pro hunter/fisherman (sort of ironic given the stereotypical image of a north easterner) and has land access rules set up to reflect that. So my bias might be clouding my judgement...
Regardless - it's amazing to read some of these posts and take up some of the amazing knowledge you guys have about these things. It's amazing and I am grateful for the education!
Stay tuned and thanks for your participation.
State land in CO is owned by the "public". Yet we can't set foot on it for any reason, even if a public road transects it. We can't cross it to reach NF on the other side.
0I agree that the law "should" be changed (Dear Lord, forgive me for sounding like Elizabeth Warren by using that word). All it would take is for some state pass a law forcing access at contiguous corners where the first corner is accessible from a public right-of-way. A citizen initiative could do this. But then comes the lengthy and very expensive battle to convince the US Supreme Court to overturn a previous USSC ruling that it violates the 5th Amendment.
Not sure what a state has to gain by doing this, but it will cost the state government a ton of money and legal time to fight this all the way to the USSC, where they will very likely lose due to precedent.
Or the USFS and BLM could be tasked with negotiating easements with hundreds of landowners. They couldn't force it, only negotiate. And again, what do those agencies have to gain from all that effort? Not more revenue because hunters don't pay to hunt there. Its already being managed for "multiple use" under the law.
I've spent a 39 year career dealing with property boundaries and property rights issues and I've also been through the legislative process a couple times successfully implementing changes to state statutes.
If you guys are going to take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and be successful at convincing them that they got it wrong the first time it would probably be wise to understand the current law and the legal principles that are the basis for the Supreme Court ruling.
I wish you guys well and I look forward to legal corner crossing in the future...
For those who don't understand how it works, the white sections are privately owned, by many different property owners. The purple chunks were bought by the state years ago to provide access to contiguous chunks. The dotted-line "roads" do not offer public access unless they jump off from another public road on public land. Some have easements negotiated where they cross a corner. The circle I've drawn in shows a checkerboard corner where a county road transects it, where access is permitted. Most of the other roads are private, even though they may have a "number" beside them. They aren't public right-of-ways when they cross private.
This is just a small portion of our county. The logistics involved with negotiating with every single property owner for access would be ridiculous, and the public agencies have nothing to gain except the goodwill of a tiny portion of the voting public. So it's going to take some sort of overreaching state or federal law, then a very sympathetic USSC to make it hold up. Or else we just do it and hope we don't get caught and charged with criminal trespass.
If voting hunters made up more than about 4% of the voting public this might get some legs at the initiative level. But as we learned in CO, just because the citizens pass a statewide initiative doesn't mean it will hold up to a constitutional challenge.
Just north of your circle is GOAT MTN. From what you describe, the only access to the piece of public land sitting just north of GOAT MTN would be by the trail coming from the north. The dotted road intersecting the sw corner would be private, correct?
At the corner where "334" sits, a private road crosses the NF corner and gives that property owner access to landlocked NF section 24, which can't legally be reached from the purple because the person who owns the triangle in section 23 refused to sell to the state.
Some of the purple in that area was donated to the state for public use by the former owner of that big ranch. I know the family. He kept the Goat mountain piece, where his wildlife artist daughter and her sculptor husband now live.
This is how sticky and tricky the whole issue is. CO landowners are not required to post private land. Right or wrong, laws would need to be changed in a major way to open up these NF parcels.
Per Glunt's note, none of those numbered trails in the north checkerboard areas are open to the public, even by walking. (184, 304, 310, 308, 316, etc..)
"Guys! I just found one of Lou's hot spots on a thread about corner crossing! Let's put in for tags there!!!!"
Man would they be in for a surprise.
I just happen to live a couple miles west of the map, grew up hunting and fishing there, and intimately know the access issues and many of the landowners.
However that is not the case here. The public land a person is coming from is legal to be on and hunt, hike, whatever. They are literally stepping from that over a pin onto another public land where the exact same rules and regulations.... and uses.... apply to everyone..... but for access denied by the landowner over "airspace" you would swing an arm or a leg over.
The landowner (and friends, family..... clients) certainly enjoy the legal uses of that public land. If the activity is legal.... it is legal to ALL, not just legal activity to those adjacent landowners. The only issue is the intentional denial of access, to public property. Government property being used for private gain, but more importantly, exclusive use and gain.
And allowing/requiring that access does not deny the adjacent landowner of any uses he currently enjoys. None. Only the EXCLUSIVE use.
Hopefully this will get some traction in MT.
As hunters we need to find ways to make the pie bigger so Americans can continue to enjoy one of our proudest traditions. The #1 reason people quit hunting is lack of opportunity. Here in commie CA the libs are doing the private landowners work and then some - darn little hunting on ANY public land, and ridiculous restrictions on private property. You go down that road and that's where it ends up.
Anyone who pays a premium for land because it provides exclusive access to inaccessible "public" land should certainly take into account that that inaccessibility could change at any moment. It's a risk one should put into the equation when determining the value of the parcel. I understand some would like to protect their private preserves but that isn't in the public interest. Opening up access to public land is in the public interest.
My proposal doesn't infringe on any private landowners right to enjoy his own land. It just provides incentive for them to seek out an arrangement with the state. It's entirely their decision. But the states job is not to create private preserves for people on public land.
Whether judged "right or unjust" by the Supreme Court of the Internet, highly doubtful that state will pass a law to force an action on citizens which has already been ruled as unconstitutional with a couple different precedential cases.
Please explain what a state has to gain by attempting to prohibit hunting on federal land (which they don't have the power to do under federal law anyway)? A state can designate licenses for private land only, or unit-wide public and private, but they can't force the BLM or USFS to prohibit all hunting and fishing on hundreds of sections just because some hunters don't like how the law is enforced. Some of you folks need to educate yourselves on how western public land laws work. Nice try, though!
A bill called the HUNT bill was proposed in both the US House and Senate a couple years ago but went nowhere. It was a good try, instructing agencies to use LWCFA money to purchase access to landlocked and checkerboard parcels. This is how it needs to be done to stand the legal tests.
Too bad we can't get the USSC to rule against the WY wilderness guide rule!
You are absolutely wrong as to whether the states can prohibit hunting on a parcel of Federal land. They can on any parcel they want to that exists within the boundaries of the state.
The gain is that the state won't have to purchase expensive sections to open up more public hunting opportunities like your example. Instead they can incentivize landowners to provide access easements for a reasonable cost.
Take your time. I'll make popcorn..
It seem to me that if the Supreme Court finds Rancher's out west the right to the low level air space over their property it has to go for all instances doesn't it? So, if drones can achieve the right to occupy low level airspace, why can't a guy hopping a corner? My asking that wasn't meant to object to the law or, your reciting of it. It really was a legitimate question.
My personal feelings on this topic doesn't matter. I do know we have fought this here and won the right to a granted easement through private property to national forest lands previously and locked by private owners. Granted, it is a long walk for access and, it is a real long hike for access to some portions through that one easement, it is a granted right. And, the fact it doesn't exist to all Publically owned land country wide does in fact solidify that it is a regional issue.
God Bless men
Now, what legitimate "just cause" would the state be compelled to show to get the USFS to agree to selectively shut down hunting on the designated 28 sections just on my little corner of the map? They'd have to do it statewide for hundreds of sections, USFS and BLM. (coersion of private property owners would not qualify, since there's no compelling reason for this action besides a few hunters whining. It would end up In court, and the Takings Clause would get it immediately stopped.).
But I'm open to what you can find as precedent or law that would allow it and be constitutional when it goes to court the next day. You find it and get a legal opinion and I'll start the campaign.
Just remember that the game wardens and wildlife managers who will be inventorying and keeping track of each and every little parcel, recommending closure, recommending reopening, recommending closure again if the guy on the other side says no, trying to bully landowners, these guys live and work with the landowners they'd be trying to screw over. They go to the same churches, their kids go to the same schools and rodeo together, their wives are in the same reading groups. They have coffee together and fish together. they do habitat projects together. They cooperate to push elk back onto public land before seasons start (Yes, that's true, I've been there). Some allow the wardens to hunt their land or access public through it. Their job depends upon cooperation from these same landowners. They have nothing to gain from forcing their neighbors to allow the Sitka Army to march through at will. The chances of what you're suggesting actually coming to pass are about as good as being hit by a meteor.
I took the advice and wrote an email to all of the reps. I may have come on a little strong, telling them that I think a bill that makes corner hopping illegal is Un-American. I don't regret it. And I have been on the landowner's side vs. trespassers in several instances. This is different.
I own land (my house and lot), and the city will not let me build anything right up to my property line. This is common, and a bill preventing the building of a wall right up to a property line would likely be found to be constitutional, in my opinion. I think the idea is that if I build a structure right up to the line, it infringes on my neighbor's rights. Somewhat analogous to this discussion.
States spend money on litigation, even on obviously losing causes, all the time. Case in point, Louisiana loves to pass abortion laws that, even if morally right, are dead on arrival given federal law and precedent, but this broke state will spend millions fighting on, in futility. (Not to equate the 2 issues, but these LA laws always get thrown out.) They also spend millions on leasing/buying/managing land (WMA's) for the sole purpose of providing access for hunting. So, although wasting money on losing lawsuits is not smart, fighting for a law that could unlock thousands of acres of public land - to the public - may be worthwhile if a bill is carefully crafted to accomplish that.
I think the proposed idea of banning all hunting on public that is blocked by corners is not the best approach. But I disagree that it would " punish people who bought property in good faith under the existing law, paying premium prices for contiguity to public land" That is a distraction because nobody is suggesting that contiguity with public land is an issue, it is only the using of that land to block the public from the public's own land that is the issue. That is not done in good faith. If it was, the landowner would not object to corner hopping. JMO
Too many people look at only one little part of this - "I want in there and they should let me" - without looking at the big picture. I've lived with it my whole life here in checkerboard country. Your last point about it being a distraction: that is exactly the reason our county sheriff gave me FOR pressing trespassing charges. I basically quoted him word for word.
The two primary reasons states don't try to force this are: It most certainly won't hold up to a court challenge, and it brings no additional benefit to the state. No additional revenue, no additional hunting licenses sold. Only a bunch of anger from rural property owners (neighbors, donors, voters) to attempt to force something that would largely benefit a few urban hunters and people from out of state.
Western states have a big political problem now with the urban-rural divide. Its ugly. This would make it even worse, and no politician wants to deal with more of that. Something like this needs to be done at the federal level, by funding an easement buying-leasing program and adding personnel to make it happen. Last time it was attempted there, it went nowhere.
You guys need to be pushing your US Reps and Senators to make this happen, not the state level officials. This Montana proposal (as I read it) wouldn't do anything substantive since its already illegal to cross corners now.
National Parks and Monuments are also "public land", owned by the American people through the Federal Government. They are closed to hunting, restricted on where you can go and when, and what you can do when in there.
I used to work with the USFS when one of my big mountain parks was part NF and part municipal owned. We (park management) were given the authority by the USFS to determine types of permitted use, when it would be open or closed, etc. This, even though it crossed a public road and was National Forest "public land", we only allowed the public in when we decided to let them in, and we didn't allow hunting.
I wonder how high you have to go to avoid "trespassing" on someone's precious corners, and how low you have to be to avoid the 24-hour no-hunt rule.
The point is, the checkerboard corner crossing issue may become academic due to technology
One other element I forgot - in the USFS and BLM management mandates, recreation (ie.. hunting) is listed as the lowest priority use of NF and BLM land. It generates no revenue to the agencies.
"The Feb. 4 guest editorial by Chuck Denowh on corner crossing presented many inaccuracies. Corner crossings do not constitute the taking of private property. Denowh mentions Montana ethics on private lands, but was silent on public lands. He mentions a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but it doesn’t exist and no case number was mentioned. Nor does it exist in the state statutes. There is also no Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks statute or regulation on corner crossing.
There is, however, a Supreme Court ruling in Camfield v. United States which defines the Unlawful Enclosures Act of 1885 (43 U.S.C. 1061-1064) and the interference of obstructing access from private lands to public lands. The act, which is supreme over state law, states that “free passage of man or animal from place to place on the public domain.”
We believe the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court ruling also applies to public access for lawful purposes as defined in the UEA. This ruling involved the Bureau of Land Management and state lands, and the UEA of 1885 needs to be considered in the corner crossing issue today.
Moreover, the federal Taylor Grazing Act reinforces the UEA’s mandate that access to public lands be preserved: “Nothing contained in this subchapter shall restrict the ingress and regress over public lands for all proper and lawful purposes.” (43 CFR U.S.C. 315e.)
Corner crossing does not create a nuisance, injury or economic impact to private property. The corners are public property. The public already has the right to use public land and the UEA forbids the obstruction of access to and on public lands. A private landowner cannot prevent access to and on public land as defined in the UEA for both wild animals and man. We recognize many Montana landowners cooperate fully in the landowner-sportsmen issue.
A recent case near Anaconda involved corner crossing for hunting by local residents on public state lands. After harvesting two bull elk, they were confronted by the Rock Creek Cattle Co. and FWP warden. The warden issued citations and confiscated the elk.
The evidence proved otherwise in court. The hunters used Google Earth and GPS to verify their location and the location of corner markers. The judge dismissed all charges after viewing the evidence. The warden acted without cause and no regulation or statute on corner crossing.
But when did it become illegal to use state land for lawful purposes? The hunters were never compensated for loss of the two bull elk and no formal apology.
The issue of public land access for lawful purposes and enjoyment and the use of public lands, federal and state, will not go away. As public land access becomes more difficult and the value of wildlife increases, the use of corner crossing becomes more important to be pursued in the legal arena and application of the UEA of 1885."
Please note, this copy and pasted article appears to be an editorial from a private citizen so I am not sure if it is accurate. But, if it is, it is is definitely worth considering.
Jaq, do have a link or info related to the USSC ruling that you have referred to? If you have already posted it, I apologize, for I must have missed it. Thanks. MO
Scoutin''s Link
You have to remember that what you posted is simply a letter to the editor. It has about as much credence as any of our posts here on Bowsite. Corner crossing isn't specifically called out as illegal. He is correct. Neither is having a picnic in someone's backyard specifically defined as illegal in the statutes anywhere.
Both the BLM and USFS policy documents specifically state that corner crossing is NOT legal to reach parcels of land they manage.
For anyone wishing to do it, the best bet is to contact the sheriff's office in the county where you want to do it and find out their policy. My CPW won't cite me because he can't prove intent to hunt on the private I'm crossing. My sheriff will cite me because they believe it is intent to cross private land. He gave me examples of specific spots where they've written citations (one was where I want to hop). I know landowners who have hidden game cams just back from the corners. So it all depends upon the local jurisdiction.
In 1887, Lucius Lamar (Dept of Interior Secretary) urged Congress to provide road size access to the checkerboard sections and compensate landowners for portions crossing private. I bet we could have got the easements pretty cheap back then.
Shoots-Straight's Link
While we do not undertake to say that Congress has the unlimited power to legislate against nuisances within a State, which it would have within a Territory, we do not think the admission of a Territory as a State deprives it of the power of legislating for the protection of the public lands, though it may thereby involve the exercise of what is ordinarily known as the police power, so long as such power is directed solely to its own protection. A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.
Then Shortly thereafter, the Court upheld the reservation of vast tracts of land such as national forests, indicating that these lands were held in trust for the people of the whole country, and that it was for Congress, not the courts, to say how that trust should be administered. Light v. United States (1911).
Congress decides and sets policy, and we decide who Congress is. Also until this administration took over and started to repeal how the lands are managed, the public had a lot of say in it. Our Off Road Vehicle decision on the Bitterroot National Forest had over 13,400 comments on it, and took 7 years for a decision. I think the public has a lot more say than you eluded too.
In your last paragraph you said, "Our Off Road Vehicle decision on the Bitterroot National Forest had over 13,400 comments on it, and took 7 years for a decision." Exactly. The agency decided on the off-road use policy changes, after considering public input. This is how it should be. But the "public" did not decide. "Congress" did not decide. The USFS administrators decided after weighing the variables against the input. On the other side, there is currently loud public input demanding mountain bike access to wilderness areas (non-motorized), and so far the USFS has not changed the policy to permit that.
The term "public land" is nebulous because it doesn't mean the "public" can do anything, anytime, anywhere. Your quote of the Light decision spells that out precisely - the lands are held in "trust" for the people. Merriam Webster defines "trust" as being "something entrusted to one to be cared for in the interest of another". Who holds them? In this case, the various agencies of the federal government hold them in trust for the general population. Those landlocked sections provide revenue in the form of grazing, logging, and sometimes outfitting permit fees. That satisfies the "multiple use" and "trust" dictums.
But you are incorrect that Congress decides and sets individual use policies. It is the agencies (led by presidential appointees) who decide and set use policy. Congress was never involved in the Bitterroot off-road policy decision. Congress wasn't involved in the policy decision in my NF to ban all firearms discharge within 150 yards of any road or trail.
In both the BLM and National forest policy documents, corner-crossing is specifically mentioned as being "not considered legal access". The policy could be changed, theoretically, after it survives hundreds of legal challenges (likely a class-action suit as well). Others have mentioned that corner crossing is not specifically mentioned as being "illegal" in state law. True. Neither is there no specific mention in any state law of "having a picnic in someone else's backyard" as being illegal.
This is all just gum-flapping. The only way to know for sure is to call the sheriff in the county where you intend to corner-jump. The USFS won't help you because they've already declared it to not be legal. Or just do it and figure out later if you are cited, then fight the ticket all the way to the Supreme Court if you wish. In my county the sheriff has made their policy very clear. In some other counties, the Sheriff has decided not to pursue it.
Make a call and let us know what they say. Don't have to give out the county you called, just curious as to how others respond.
The BLM staff is quoting directly from the BLM policy manual. Same with USFS published policy. Their is absolutrly ambiguity. Just as their is ambiguity about what actually constitutes "driving under the influence". That's why our sheriff just writes trespassing tickets and lets the perps deal with the court system.
Deepnsteep, you can google "BLM corner crossing" and it will take you right there. Same with US Forest Service. Both say something to the effect of "Corner crossing is not considered legal access".
