Bowsite.com

Not many landowners going to let you walk accross and access “their elk” for cheap when even average hunts are 5Gs and primo area pushing 15Gs .

NOTE*** some helicopter rental sites clearly state : will only take off and land at paved airports no grass strips or undeveloped landing sites.

Best case Scenario ‘make friends with helicopter owner.’

As for details, I can probably help you out. A few things right away.

1. USFS does not allow helicopter landings, only BLM.

2. You must land on an existing two-track or other motorized route.

3. Your transporter must be licensed for landing on BLM lands. Find the transporter with the BLM fire support contract or permitted for seismic work and you should be set.

4. Forget "jumping off a skid" as an idea to get around the two-track idea. You'll never get a transporter to allow that.

Probably a few other questions. Ask here or PM and I'll do what I can. If you plan it right, you can minimize your airtime, you'll be surprised how inexpensive it is when split among 2-4 people.

I was not aware that BLM could be locked up like that, even if the surrounding private was enrolled in RFW. Other BLM can't be leased for hunting.

:-)

I had never heard of it either. But in CO, a RFW operator can petition the BLM to allow him to enroll the BLM lands in his RFW operation, thereby increasing his enrolled acreage and the number of tags allotted.

At the time I applied for a film permit from BLM, Three Forks Ranch has BLM lands enrolled in their RFW operation. I was told my public deer and elk tags I had acquired would not be eligible for use on the BLM lands enrolled in the Three Forks Ranch RFW program.

Maybe it has changed, but I doubt it. There is some prime elk and deer hunting on those landlocked BLM lands and it would not have been very expensive to fly in with a helicopter when split among three guys.

But, unless the law has been changed by the CPW Commission or the Three Forks Ranch no longer enrolls those lands, it is not an option to hunt those BLM lands unless you have a RFW tag purchased from the Three Forks Ranch.

Yeah, I know what you are thinking; WTH?

And as Randy explains, landlocked BLM can be registered as part of the RFW program so illegal for the public to access even if you helicopter in.

They may be able to do it, but it's BS. It's not right.

"Federal and State Lands - Ranches may include Federal land in-holdings if they are completely surrounded by the enrolled ranch lands and there is no public access to these lands by legal road or trail. "

Link provided. Look to Part II, Paragraph C,

I'm not a fan of RFW or the way our landowner tag system is set up. RFW was recently expanded to a Bighorn sheep program. I think we over-valued the right to access the land and under-valued the ram tags the ranches get.

Trapperkayak, as our county sheriff told me when I asked if they woukd prosecute me for corner-jumping all the checkerboard in our area, "People pay a premium price for land that adjoins public. If you want to access that area you should buy some land like they did". He also said they would absolutely prosecute me (and do) if I was on NF since I had to prove how I got there legally.

Just curious, what makes that rancher especially "greedy"?

RFW might have some mention in Colorado revised statutes, I will look at it later.

If anyone choppers in, and gets a ticket for hunting public land - I'll give you a benjamin for your attorneys fees in a go fund me fashion.

Further, I would call Heather Duggan, chief law enforcement officer at CPW. Tell her you have read the regulations as found on CPW web page under the "about us" link, and reviewed CRS, and believe you have the right to go hunt those publicslands with your valid license. I'd then ask her if there was any specific regulation that would prohibit you from doing that.

I can't find anything in CRS, about RFW - but that doesn't mean there isn't. I would ask Heather.

I did find the following in CRS. If someone post public land or INDICATE as private - 20 point violation, which I believe is loss of hunting priveledges, and a whopping 150 fine

Based on my recollection RFW operators are not allowed to hunt on public land, it defeats the purpose of the program. There has always been a push to get more ranches enrolled, which some like and some don't. They often suggest reducing the acreage requirement, but lowering that just further privatizes wildlife

Who wants to partner up on a chopper into unit 40? I think it takes 4 points, so I am a few years out.

If that rancher doesn't have any public grazing but corner crosses Forest to get cattle to another piece of private property that he adjoins at a corner, would he ever get a ticket for crossing the Forest the opposite way we aren't allowed to cross at the same corner?

If a baling twine salesman a rancher doesn't like, see's the rancher in his field, stops on the road walks to the rancher's fence and stretches his arm over his fence line waving to him, would the sheriff write the salesman a trespassing ticket?

Those are silly examples but no sillier than a property owner crossing a few inches of airspace to lift a foot from his own property and set it back down on on his own property.

I don't agree with the ruling but but it is what it is. Sheriff is an elected position and influential constituents carry more weight than some guys from out-of-town who want to hunt someone one else's exclusive landlocked chunk of government trust land.

What does the sprained ankle have to do with corner hopping? How could the guy sue the landowner if he was on public land when he sprained his ankle? If he did it on private it means he was trespassing and that's a totally different issue.

I see absolutely zero problems with corner hopping and will do it with a clear conscience, if necessary. If I have to pay a trespassing fine someday, so be it. It will still be cheaper than paying for trespass fees.

People are prosecuted for corner-hopping, and the USSC ruled on it in the Leo Sheep Company case. That's the bottom line.

Do you think it's ok to lay off the brake and go 56 mph down a hill? Or for a 20 year old to come back from deployment and have a beer with his dad? If you think either of those make a person unethical I guess your above argument holds water and I'm selfish.

I just got off the phone with our sheriff a few minutes ago after discussing this very topic. We're working together on a strategy to bust some weekend folks who are trespassing to get into NF and causing problems, who believe the same way as you. I don't think he would buy your "what I believe is right and wrong" explanation while taking a ride into town in the back seat of the Sheriff's Department SUV...

Much like other discussions where the law is sort of fuzzy (see: pedal-assist bikes) it's up to local LEO whether they want to cite someone and test the law.

"These sections lie to the east and south of the Seminoe Reservoir, an area that is used by the public for fishing and hunting. Because of the checkerboard configuration, it is physically impossible to enter the Seminoe Reservoir sector from this direction without some minimum physical intrusion upon private land. In the years immediately preceding this litigation, the Government had received complaints that private owners were denying access over their lands to the reservoir area or requiring the payment of access fees. After negotiation with these owners failed, the Government cleared a dirt road extending from a local county road to the reservoir across both public domain lands and fee lands of the Leo Sheep Co. It also erected signs inviting the public to use the road as a route to the reservoir."

An earlier court ruled that the checkerboard sections had an implied "easement" to allow crossing at the corners. The USSC reversed that ruling and determined that there is not an implied easement because there is no way to do it without "minimal physical intrusion on private land". So effectively, the USSC ruled against the federal government in this case.

Is a 2' wide human really an "intrusion"? The bigger issue is that in the eyes of the court it appears private property rights (and the right to use adjacent government-owned property) trumps the general public's right to access for recreation. Montana tried to pass a state law allowing corner-crossing but it didn't pass. Too many influential property owners with checkerboard situations, probably.

"The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is willing and able to investigate suspected corner crossing with intent to hunt or fish and refer those cases to county prosecutors, said Scott Edberg, assistant chief of the department's Wildlife Division."

""The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is willing and able to investigate suspected corner crossing with intent to hunt or fish and refer those cases to county prosecutors, said Scott Edberg, assistant chief of the department's Wildlife Division." "

It's not luck

Note : "with intent to hunt". That refers to intent to hunt the private land and at that, becomes a criminal trespass issue. They refer that issue to the DA because the Game Dept wardens can not cite for criminal infractions (Title 6).

I talked to the Dept Chief Warden a cpl weeks ago and told him I drew a unit XX Elk tag and was going to corner cross, who's property was adjacent, and asked him point blank if he or one of his guys would write a ticket. He laughed and said, "I'll give you the dept's stock answer then we can discuss". "We suggest you don't corner cross." "Now, the reality is, it depends." "If you cross into private with intent to hunt that private, or you enter land you know is private because of signage, verbal communication, etc., it's criminal trespass and we refer those to the Sheriff." "If you cross from BLM to BLM, we will not write a ticket." I asked if a Deputy would write me up and the answer was "not in that County". "The issue is on a county by county basis in the state of Wyoming, dependent on the County DA's interpretation of the circumstances of the individual incident". I asked about the oft mentioned "airspace" and he dismissed it.

I also talked to the Game Dept Law Enforcement Coordinator on Wednesday and asked the same question regarding crossing in the unit I drew. "That County DA does not prosecute for corner crossing if you go from public to public, but, I think they do in 33333 County."

I spend quite a bit of time in that "33333" county and pretty sure they do prosecute. Lots of checkerboard NF from the original railroad grants, and some influential property owners.

The main reason I have LEOs on speed-dial is because the courts tend to frown upon us shooting them ourselves.

Love your last line. :) I used to hunt a checkerboarded area back in the early 90s. It was a mess because for 30 years prior to my first year hunting, nobody said anything and it was all considered public land. My dad and his friends actually created many of the roads in the area when I was a kid but I didn't hunt it until I was 22. Quite a rude awakening when I got there and the private land was suddenly off limits. I will admit to cutting a few corners back in the day, but I certainly wasn't like the people you describe not being able to shoot. Or at least I hope I wasn't. It was a long time ago.

Objectively speaking, however, I probably would have a different view as a private landowner esp. if there were abuses.

There is legitimate debate of the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law...

Of course, the other side might argue there MUST have been airspace violation. But again with no evidence? I think the odds are good the case would be thrown out and certainly a waste of taxpayer's money esp. if there was no private land abuse.

While I find this all interesting, I'm not versed in legal defences, so perhaps someone with more expertise than me can give their opinion of this and the other issues above.

In my county if you are in there you have to prove how you got in there. If you crossed at the corner you get arrested for trespassing.

"Private land abuse" is a nebulous term. I might argue I wasn't abusing private land by only crossing a mile of it on foot early in the morning in the dark before the landowner was even awake. The property owner would argue someone is abusing by corner crossing to a section of government land that the property owner paid 5x the surrounding per acre price to have access to that NF section. Nowhere does it say that the general public is guaranteed access to any land held in the government trust.

Either it is, or it isn't private land. As this thread indicates, some jurisdictions look the other way, others don't.

Perhaps, more importantly if you don't admit you put the tip in, where is the evidence? The other side has to present medical or other evidence including of course a confession. Let's hope you can't be convicted of rape, etc. just because a woman claims you raped her.

For precisely that reason, if the other side doesn't show up, the matter would be dismissed. They have to prove your guilt. This really is an important tenet, in many countries if charged you are presumed guilty and it is up to you to prove otherwise.

I suppose someone might go silent and try waiting the LEO out, as in staying in that section until he got tired and left, or died of old age. But as often happens with other violations the LEO could simply run the license number and visit the guy at home later, cite him there, make him prove in court that he accessed it some other way than at the corner (helicopter?).

You can come up with all sorts of theoretical "what ifs" and wave the Gadsden flag in court, but bottom line is that the USSC ruled on airspace and also corner crossing for recreational access by the public. The only question is whether the LEO in that jurisdiction wants to cite it or not.

Oh, that’s right.... Nobody EVER got stuck with a speeding ticket before radar was invented....

You’re overlooking the fact that in hunting/fishing regulations, there is no guaranteed presumption of innocence; in many/most cases the prosecution need only provide enough proof to create a reasonable belief.

And it’s not worth arguing about, because as soon as somebody wins a court case on the premise that it was some kind of “minute” infraction, we’ll be seeing every corner fenced off for a yard, and then 10 feet and then 20 and so on.

Weasels will be weasels on either side of the fence.... literal or proverbial.

If LEOs in an area specifically say they won't cite for it (like our local sheriff with AR magazine limits, for instance) then its up to the individual to decide how and whether to comply. Its still breaking the law while LEOs decide to look the other way.

I know a couple guys that have done it. The biggest issue I understand from one of em is having to draw down on the landowners/cowboys you catch that are about to slash your tires and cut up your plane.....

Things get nasty out there. When I was a kid we floated in on a river (navigable water) to hunt a BLM quadrant that was pretty well landlocked. Had been planning and mapping it out for months. An hour later the landowner was there with a shotgun threatening us with it. Crazy old fart, we told him call the cops, it's public land. Nope. It's his land, he worked it, it's his. Was gonna blow a hole in the drift boat and we might be next, so we left. Went straight to the sheriff and he said technically we were right..... but he recommended not going there again, the guy was crazy and being right isn't so satisfying after you've been shot. We asked about the threats with the gun..... sheriff said he wasn't going to do anything about it and to let it lie. Found out later they went to high school together a hundred years ago...... times may have changed, I don't know.... but back then it was quite a lesson for a kid in right, wrong.... and who ya know.... or didn't know....

Wonder who will get the tip of the scale of justice??

People make up wild stories. I've heard some doozies. The LEO's case is simple - there is no legal access to that section without trespassing unless you get in and out by helicopter. But dang, you forgot the name of the helicopter pilot and don't know how to contact him to verify your story.

At the end of the episode, you pay a fine, then go on social media and complain about injustice and government abuse of the Little Man, and locking the public out of "our" land.

I think the landowner would not be guaranteed a win, esp. if no harm was done. Most importantly, the landowner would have to prove the boundary lines were precise and I mean down to the inch.

Additionally if the land in one of the quadrants was owned by a different land owner he would also have to be willing to sue (and afford an attorney). Keep in mind if they lose, they could be liable to pay court fees, attorney fees, and more.

Importantly, those quadrant junctions in reality may not be so tidy and if they are off just by a few feet or perhaps even inches, the so called imaginary point could be crossed w/o the hunter having violated any legal airspace (and see above link) and certainly no touching of private land by the hunters feet/body.

Two can play this game of precision, and the cost of a formal survey goes beyond what the landowner might pay and even so, it could be contested by a counter survey, a more accurate gps, and so forth.

While I may seem to be supporting the contrary position, in reality I'm opened minded. As I said above there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. There are tons of laws on the books that are never enforced, so I don't blindly follow all laws.

Yes, I do believe strongly in private property rights and could argue the other side...but there is a point of reduction ad absurdum esp. if boots never touched the private property.

For example:

http://www.elistmania.com/50_stupid_laws_from_50_states/

http://www.dumblaws.com

Why 83 ft? See: https://phantompilots.com/threads/flying-over-private-property-is-illegal.104094/

See: http://www.elistmania.com/50_stupid_laws_from_50_states/

"...the so called imaginary point..."

"...the landowner would have to prove the boundary lines were precise..."

It's not a single point or an imaginary point, it's a mathematically defined point at the intersection of two lines. And it doesn't have to be defined precisely to prove a violation, as wherever it exists precisely, you would have to have crossed it.

The bottom line is the rule sucks, and everyone has an opinion about it. Either accept that you can't cross the corner or be prepared to pay the fine/trespass violation (and possible points against your hunting privileges) , or pay to fight it in court to get it changed.

Don't know where you got your 83' but here are the actual regulations in 14 CFR 91.119;

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

I have plenty of friends who are LEO’s btw, and appreciate the job they do, but some, as in all professions go a bit far.

Your comment, "it doesn't have to be defined precisely to prove a violation, as wherever it exists precisely, you would have to have crossed it." is very relevant, but the other point I made is, where the dispute is, such as at a fence juncture precise? Who put the fence there and did the put it at the PRECISE intersection? It's unlikely to be super precise. It could be many feet off. It could actually be many feet or many inches or even just a few inches off, in which case anyone could cross there w/o violating airspace.

Re: 83' if you looked at the link I provide, you would see where that came from. There was court precedent cited.

Re: you citation on altitude minimums, did you even read that closely? It did not prohibit very flight over sparsely inhabited areas. Btw, I'm an ultralight, weight shift, fixed wing, and helicopter pilot (sorta' a helicopter pilot as I don't have my rating yet).

I doubt I ever will be involved in this legally, I just find it amusing/interesting. I'm not an that versed in legal matters, but logically I think a judge would decline to take this seriously except maybe in a small claims court and only then if there was provable damage. No damage, I don't think there could be any case at all. Have any of you ever been to court? I have, and this seems to be absurd unless some provable damage occurred. And what evidence? Video, photographic, plaster casts of prints, etc.? Guilty until proven innocent? This is all somewhat troubling, I have to say although yes I believe I could make a case for the other side. But in general, I would think any penalty should be appropriate to the damage done to the land owner, wildlife, or the state. Swinging a leg thru a few inches of airspace in a remote area and making a criminal case about this is truly absurd. Maybe I'm missing something here? Yes, I could understand it if fences were cut, privacy compromised, etc.

And airspace has no relevance to trespass laws. The rancher could legally install a corner fence on his property that just extends 8 feet in both directions at the corners that would prevent a person from just "stepping over" the corner. So if he can do that, does he have to do it to prevent the act? Keep in mind that in Colorado private property borders don't even have to be physically marked for a trespass to occur.

The fact is, no matter how stupid you think the law is, it's been challenged in the past. Technically, the law is the law. If you have the time, money, and inclination to challenge it, good luck. We're all routing for you.

You can also be on a public hiking trail and decide to take a short cut across a field and be guilty of trespassing. Are we terrified of the consequences so that we always religiously stay on the trail and never even cut across a neighbourhood lawn or school ground?

You can also merely walk up to some one's front door to say "hi" and be guilty of trespassing....think about that. In fact, wouldn't entering some's home property be more serious than a remote x spot crossing?

I have no dog in this fight, but it all is quite interesting....

If it's marked by an 8 foot corner, made from 4 inch posts, then likely that corner is only on private ground, otherwise the LO is stealing public ground for part of their marker. If a LO wants to cry about trespass when corner hopping, don't put your marker on half private and half public.

As far as NM goes, land has to be posted. A fence or just corners doesn't work.

Again, it's a mathematically defined line, often not even physically marked on the ground. Any fences/posts should be on the fence owner's side. Survey markers at corners (if there are any) are usually set on 1/2" rebar, at least around here. I've also found more than one corner marker defining the same corner, that were set over a period of many years. Usually many feet apart. I assume that subsequent surveys were done using more accurate tools/instruments/methodology and the most current is the most accurate.

To carry the conversation farther, what would be the purpose of allowing corner crossing? These checkerboard sections are relatively small, surrounded by off limits ground. If the hunting was good, they would soon be overrun with hunters. And if you know ahead of time that a hostile, adjacent landowner won't allow you to retrieve an animal that makes it across the line (which is a real possibility for a bow hunter) would you feel comfortable hunting anyway?

While we're arguing for "pie-in-the-sky", a better solution to this issue would be to work toward consolidating these areas on a 1 - 1 exchange basis. Ranchers could be allowed to lease grazing rights on the public for reasonable rates, while opening large areas of public land to the public. Sure the ranchers will fight this, but there are more of us than them. Our default plan could be to lock THEM out of the public land if they don't agree to an exchange program. Who wants to lead the fight?

Just taking easements through law change or eminent domain isn't fair but I think before a landowner benefits from land owner tags, RFW, HPP money or game damage dollars, maybe looking at land locked issues could be part of the process.

Plus, a hunter swing a leg over a few inches of airspace for a few seconds and not disturbing your privacy is a fraction of an intrusion vs. a sales person bugging you.

Let's face it, the real reason ranchers threaten to sue is because they want the elk etc. for themselves.

Yes, thing about that! They are not only bugging your privacy and violating your property boundaries, THEY ACTUALLY WANT ACCESS INTO YOUR HOME! And hey, not just for a chat...no no no! THEY PLAN ON GETTING SOME OF YOUR MONEY!!

Or...in the case of religious agents, they plan on not only getting some of your money, they want TO CHANGE YOUR THINKING! You're wrong, and they have the answer! Well, they will even go so far as to give threatening hints ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN TO YOU, YOUR WIFE AND EVEN YOUR KIDS ETERNAL LIFE!!

Now, IF you let them into your domain (and that is only their first goal!) heck, they may expect a cup of coffee and use of your bathroom facilities after their long wined presentation...! Plus they may ask all sorts of personal questions. E.g. "how much you paying for electricity every month? how many baths/showers do you and the wife take a day, etc."!

Now, compare to the hunter at the remote checkerboard crossing. He may not even set foot on the ranchers private property. No, his worse "crime" is he has violated a few inches of airspace for a few seconds...didn't walk across the ranchers property, didn't disturb his privacy, didn't talk to him, didn't try to get in his house, didn't want to to sell him anything or try to get his money, ask personal questions or threaten his eternal life...!

It's NOT about the extremely transient crossing of a few inches of airspace that bothers the rancher. No, it's about the rancher keeping the elk, etc. Now that is sane. Selfishness makes sense at least.

As members here who are against it point out, it's not so much about the airspace as it is about private property rights - namely, their right to have exclusive access to public land that adjoins their property.

They don't. If they don't have a legal access they can not cross private land to access federal land.

A few days later after talking to some fed guys in town and asked them where was that ROW on the map at? They told us that the two track across the field was it. They put up signs to mark it on the gate but the signs never last more than a few days. They're pretty sure the ranch takes them down but no way to prove it. They said the ranch runs some hunts on that land as well as their property. They don't like others hunting it. Apparently the ROW is in their BLM lease.

Not sure why they cannot do much the same with other BLM, require a ROW for public access from whoever has the lease.

Nowiser wrote, "David, it's funny that those against corner crossing advocate asking permission first, which require exponentially more trespassing than actually crossing the corner." Excellent point! If we calculated the cubic inches of violation in driving up to a ranchers house, walking up to the door (and back) to request permission, vs. a corner crossing airspace intrusion, the ratio might be something like several orders of magnitude, million: 1 or whatever...wow. But, march right up to the rancher's door and he might even respect you for asking!

I don't really have a dog in this fight as I've mentioned, but the absurdity when you really start looking at this objectively is hilarious...

And NoWiser is correct about the concern of many. There are thousands of property owners who paid premium prices for land adjoining landlocked or checkerboard sections with the understanding that they and their neighbors would have protected legal access to that government-owned land. Often multiple adjoining property owners have access, not just one filthy, greedy rich land baron.The way to resolve this is by changing the law, if possible, not by saying "Screw the law, I don't believe in it so I'll do what I want".

I know a property owner who used to freely give permission to cross into NF until he started getting trail cam photos of guys (to whom who he had given permission to cross) hunting on his property. Then he got some photos of ATVs. Give 'em an inch.... When confronted with the photos they tried to deny it. One guy tried to justify it by claiming he's been trespassing to hunt on that property long before the current owner bought it. I know how it went down because I identified a couple of the guys in the photos. Now he only lets me and one other guy cross over.

Of course, I understand if an area is getting hit hard by slob hunters, it's a different ball game but that also is a slippery slope just like some people wanting to out law hunting because of all the slob hunters out there.

I do lean towards trespassing having to be more real than a few cubic inches of airspace for a few seconds...and I'll admit I don't obey all laws all the time such as coming to a rolling stop on some stop signs. I guess I would be a total misfit in Japan or Islamic countries. In general, the overriding compass for me is a) are my actions causing harm? b) are my actions moral? c) are my actions given me an unfair advantage?

My great grandfather was a sheriff in Texas and I was brought up having great respect for the law. What screwed me up was taking logic and philosophy classes in college, ha.

In many parts of the world that I have been in, landowners need to provide public access to public land such as beaches, lakes, etc. Private property rights are important, private property rights are essential. But access to public lands cannot be totally disregarded.

Now change the rules and the value of his land drops like a rock. Is that fair?

David, yes, we all want access to land held in the government trust for the people. But as I posted above, nowhere in the Forest Act does it say that the general public can access that government land no matter what.

Go looking for stuff that isn't fair, you're going to be awful busy making a list.

Learned that in dodgeball 3rd grade. We had a six foot ogre with a hairy chest.

Well maybe not, but that jackass was enormous. He could whizz that thing.

He's in prison now, which oddly enough, seems fair.

A counter argument is "go ahead and go to court, it's going to cost you $20,000 just for starters". That also is false. Firstly, I know I could represent myself for free and do as good a job as many attorneys esp. if I was motivated. Secondly, one could very likely get an attorney to take this case for free or a public defender.

I'll tell you what is going to happen after all the arm waving and hysterics, it's going to get tossed UNLESS the rancher is a big rancher and has had a lot of damage related to this issue. Even so, it likely will be all threats. It has already been dismissed before I believe. And if it went to jury...just depends who is on the jury. My point is this is not an open and shut case.

Now, before attacking me with "go ahead Alford and try it", no no I don't even hunt these situations. As I have said before, I'm just interested in the logic on both sides.

You want an argument from the rancher's side? OK, if I would suggest just maybe you have to be in an airplane to claim immunity with the FAA existing regulations. If so, a propellor hat will not be convincing...

It's not just corner hopping at the survey marker. Sometimes that corner is choked with deadfall or otherwise impassable and the guys go wherever they feel like it. So here, trespassing is considered trespassing whether it's an inch or a mile.

Where did I ever state that. I simply cited the the regs, which are pretty clear, and they don't state that. If they had I would have been in violation hundreds of times as a flight instructor practicing engine out emergency landings which I took as low as was safe and legal, often below the tree tops. I also stated that it had nothing to do with airspace restrictions, and that it was about trespass law.

"David, I don't recall writing that."

Lou, David often likes to get all fired up, and make up his own arguments that he attributes to others so he has something to knock down.

The Douglas sportsmen was acquitted of trespass charges in April after he used a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to step from one parcel of public land to another while hunting in Albany County in September 2003. The practice is known as corner jumping or corner crossing.

The case prompted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to seek a State Attorney General opinion reviewing the agency's long-standing assumption that corner jumping is illegal.

The AG opinion released by the department said corner jumping from one parcel of public land to another in order to hunt on the other public parcel does not violate Game and Fish regulations.

The opinion said corner jumping does not violate agency rules because, to be convicted, the rules require a person must hunt or intend to hunt on private property without permission. Corner jumping, however, may be a criminal trespass under state law, the opinion said.

"I'm just delighted with (the opinion) and think it's great … it was certainly worth spending the money and challenging this in court," Kearney said.

"A real positive aspect of the opinion is with the increasing pressure from hunters and sportsmen and rockhounds and whoever … it's a good thing that could result in public access to large tracts of public lands," he said.

"The Game and Fish can now use its license fee money and not waste their time dealing with people legally accessing public lands in court."

Corner jumping describes the practice of stepping over the corner created where four sections of land meet in order to reach a cater-corner parcel of public lands.

Kearney stepped from one parcel of public land to another. The parcels met at a corner where two pieces of private land also meet.

Game and Fish Director Terry Cleveland said the opinion means the agency will change its method of handling corner jumping complaints.

"If somebody calls us and tells us there's corner jumping occurring, we'll simply tell them we don't have the authority to do something about it," Cleveland said in a phone interview.

"If they call us on a trespass situation and we get out there and find it's a corner jumping complaint … then we'll tell them they should take it up with the county sheriff or the county attorney," he said.

Bob Wharff, executive director for Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said while he fears the ruling might chip away at private property rights, it could lead to more open and frank discussions about access to public lands.

"Even the best GPS units that are available are only accurate to three meters and three meters doesn't get you close enough to say you're actually jumping from corner to corner," Wharff said in an interview.

"I think it's a dangerous precedent that the opinion sets … we're all for access, but I'm real nervous about private property rights and the erosion of those rights," he said.

"But on the other hand, we may see that there's going to be a little bit more willingness for landowners to come to the table and talk about access … and ultimately help us broach some of those roadblocks (to access) that may have been there in the past."

"So it looks like it depends on who is doing the interpretation. BLM is Fed Land so if I was ticketed for using Fed Land without stepping on private land I'd be getting a lawyer and seeing what the Feds have to say since state law can't overrule Fed law. An organization like SCI or DSC would probably take up the case pro bono since they protect hunter's rights."

All very interesting isn't it?

"Specifically, if the most accurate GPS is approx. 3 meters., how can trespassing be proved within those constraints?"

Really David? The corner exists. If you need a surveyor to determine where it is, get it surveyed. There are no "constraints" due to GPS. If it's not accurate that is no excuse. That defense actually is not in your favor. If corner crossing were legal, and if you didn't cross the corner because of inaccurate GPS, or any other method used to determine it, then in fact, you did trespass. And, in Colorado and probably other states, it's up to you to know where you are, not the landowners responsibility to mark his borders.

I would have to agree with folks that re-confirm the fact that we are not guilty until proven so. Lou, it really sounds like CO is turning into a cesspool of people that think they get special rights because of the thickness of their wallet. It is interesting to see the mindset of others from various areas of our country. My mindset likely seems odd to some from other areas or backgrounds.

Colorado and many other western states also are "free range" states. That basically means that livestock can go anywhere. If you don't want them on your property, YOU have to fence them out. The rancher is not responsible for fencing them in.

Combined, this makes the "checkerboard" very advantageous to ranchers, while "locking up" public land to the public. It would take a very determined effort to shake these lands out of the current system. Personally, I don't think corner crossing is an acceptable solution. These lands should be consolidated into larger contiguous blocks of public and private with access to the public lands. I can think of many ways this could be done using a "carrot and stick" approach to get cooperation from the ranchers. But it wouldn't be easy.

I would agree, and at that point it becomes trespass or criminal trespass. Several states have criteria that need to be met for criminal trespass; MT, WY, and NM that I'm aware of. The verbage is essentially the same for those states.

45-6-203.?Criminal trespass to property. (1) Except as provided in 15-7-139, 70-16-111, and 76-13-116, a person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property if the person knowingly:

(a) enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure; or

(b) enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises of another.

And, back to where we started, does your County DA believe crossing thru air space meet the requirement of "entering" the premises of another?

Not where I hunt.

This already happens. The problem is, the way it works, is the rancher buys some crap parcel that is worthless to you and I, then gets with the public officials who they either know or their boss knows, then in a smoky back room, some cash changes hands, and presto-chango, the rancher buys lands for pennies on the dollar their worth and we now have new public lands that might hold sage grouse in 20 years and lose lands that have elk, deer, and harvestable timber on them right now.

It's kind of the way of the way of the world though.

Money talks and who you happen to know trumps right and wrong more often than it should. Not much you can do about it, so it isn't worth worrying about.

Well, maybe a bunch of our world has turned that way, but not all of us are assclowns trying to steal from the taxpaying base. We (our group) have roughly 3,000 acres. There is a piece of state land inside ours that is, in fact, landlocked. We have been trying to buy that 500 or so for about five years now. We don't feel it's right to try to lock people out of public ground, but they (public) have to cross a minimum of one 300 acre piece of ours to get to the public ground. We actually bought another 640 two years ago to trade for that landlocked ground, as the state can't sell it, but can trade for other acreage.

What some of these other asshats are pulling, while hiding behind "private property rights" is quite simply bullshit.

First of all, let me repeat, I am personally not necessarily in favour of corner jumping, although most of my posts have been in defense of that position. Is it so rare a person has enough bandwidth to argue a contrary position for fun or to entertain two opposing views simultaneously?

What that article does do is pretty much isolate this to civil trespass and hunters should worry a lot less that a game warden will cite them.

Now in regard to the gps issue the fence crossing may not actually be at four corners but all in public land. It would be up to the rancher to provide surveying information if the gps and esp. more than one gps showed the actual boundaries were not where the fence crossing is. Same as if you are cited for hunting on private property when the gps shows you are just outside it. I made this point earlier those fence positions may or may not be accurate. A bunch of cowboys probably put them up following terrain that made it easiest or a survey marker from a mile away a quarter of a century or longer ago.

And all of this hoopla because a few inches of airspace were violated for a few seconds? Only in the USA! No wait! It's entirely likely the North Koreans would shoot someone standing outside their border fence but ho waved their hand across it for a few seconds!

https://www.pointtopointsurvey.com/2016/07/7-land-surveying-myths-misconceptions-debunked/

I don't like it either but it is a prosecutable offense wherever they decide to prosecute it. I'm thing the shoe would be on the other foot of you'd bought your dream mountain property and then discovered a bunch of asshats were breaking breaking the current law and marching/riding ATVs across your property into the NF behind. Or would you put up a big sign saying "Public Welcome"?

A hunter or fisherman quietly stepping over a corner pin and continuing his way on public land should not diminish the enjoyment of your property unless you feel entitled to exclusive use of the public land.

Fake news, try less than 4 cm (less than 2 inches for American folk) in real time.

"Although you may be able to find old maps created for tax purposes, in many cases the land you own might have never been surveyed. Additionally, if you do find a previous survey from decades ago, there’s no guarantee it was accurate at the time, nor will it necessarily help solve your issue or assist you in identifying the actual property lines on the ground.

Land surveying is an art, not an exact science. It is possible for two surveyors to obtain different results. Also, because the measurements are made based on the evidence found, two surveyors working at different points in time may not have the same evidence available." -- https://www.pointtopointsurvey.com/2016/07/7-land-surveying-myths-misconceptions-debunked/

So the bottom line it would seem (haha) is anyone with a good lawyer is going to get the case tossed.

But the bottom line is who really wants to spend all that money and time in court? It wouldn't be worth it to me.

I do feel as a private landowner I might argue differently...I have imagination and it doesn't take that much imagination to imagine how pized off one might be when the issues that Lou and others have pointed out occur.

Landowner incentives to make enclosed public lands accessible is perhaps going to be the best solution.

"The truth is often found at the intersection of two independent lies..."

Twice I have received permission to cross private land to hunt public or other private land. Once an island that gave me he same quality goose hunt on a 7 acre island between to goose clubs. the other was access through an outfitters big game outfit to hunt a 30 " mu lie on state and county land Both situations the ranchers didnt care much for he lease's.

The problem here is when you start off your reply with this statement it tells me you know nothing on the subject and are just going with your gut instinct. Everyone is a sea lawyer when the ship leaves the dock...

Grab a FAR/AIM and read the regulations.

And what would be the point of selling the checkerboard public land sections? (BTW, they do that all the time now, and around where I live the USFS actually bought a bunch of private sections to eliminate the checkerboarding.) Wouldn't that negate the purpose of building and maintaining hundreds of miles of new roads? Even if the Federal Govt illegally tried to seize the private property of hundreds of landowners, who would build and maintain these roads? USFS can't maintain the roads they have now.

One thing I don’t have an issue with...why shouldn’t the government gain access to public lands? Right now the land owners are using it as their own private play grounds. Use eminent domain and “take” 40 feet to use as access, hell, give them back the same amount from the public property that’s now being accessed. Now that’s a pipe dream!

And of course you're talking about recreational access. Don't pretend it isn't. The only people clamoring to open up these landlocked checkerboards are hunters. What else would it be for? Logging? Good luck with that. Mining? Drilling?

Bowsiteguy, you seem to be going in circles. On one hand you talk about opening the squares up for access. On the other hand, you talk about "funds created from the bonanza of property sales". Which is it? USFS and BLM are already selling off landlocked chunks.

What is the compelling reason for the USFS to engage in such a gigantic, expensive battle that would involve hundreds of lawsuits all the way to the USSC, at tremendous cost to taxpayers, just so hunters can access some landlocked sections? What does the USFS have to gain from this?

This is what Justice Warren Berger wrote: "We are unwilling to accept the Government's invitation to upset settled expectations to accommodate some ill-defined power to construct public thoroughfares through private property without compensation".

So yes, eminent domain is a possibility in taking land from hundreds of landowners. But this isn't a matter of crossing at a corner. As Ziek pointed out, many of these parcels, probably most (all of the ones I know) would require building a road through significant portions of private property to reach the corners. These aren't golf courses. Expensive, difficult projects for an agency short of cash now. And for what compelling reason?

If there was a compelling reason, the money would be found.

So, what about a snorkel boom lift? Those can extend 50+ feet and drop you off on the other side of the property line.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no reason for the understaffed and underfunded USFS to undertake such a dramatic effort. They already negotiate and purchase easements where significant blocs are/were locked up, like on the mountain behind my house.

And if the land held true hunting value, then that land is better off landlocked in the LO's eyes as he can just use all of it and lease it out for big money. There are a lot of outfitters and a lot of LOs who make a boat load of money from hunters who basically pay the "outfitter" to open a gate for which he paid for the key. Why trade grazing rights on this section for grazing right on that section, when you get grazing rights on a section anyways and a 5 digit yearly income for handing a guy a key to a gate?

I will push back just a little, though, Jaq; Why the assumption that roads would be necessary?

I wouldn’t expect a landowner to like the idea of an easement AT ALL, of course, but if the easements extended to access only for foot & hoof traffic.... Motorized Vehicles can do a lot of damage when used irresponsibly, and that would clearly harm the landowners.

The problem would be that the already-accessible acreage would immediately turn into a parking lot/campground in the corner(s) nearest an easement.

And that could get pretty disruptive.

If the easement you suggest was open to foot and horse travel I'd be ok with that, because Colorado law allows e-assist bikes to go wherever foot and horseback can go (except in designated wilderness areas). So me and Rambo would be on our way in to hunt!

Kinda stupid to pay somebody for damage to a haystack when it was caused by animals which the landowner knowingly and deliberately protected by providing sanctuary during the hunting seasons.

And just as stupid to pay him for lost livestock when predators follow the prey base onto private land and then turn to livestock when they prove so much easier to catch.

I guess I would like to THINK that the laws in this country would prevent somebody from having it both ways and profiting from a public resource.

Besides, to hear the ranchers tell it, they don’t make nearly enough money to be able to make any meaningful campaign contributions....

So when I see this stuff, I just think: "Really, it's that bad if there is a foot/hoof access space along the edge of a parcel of private to reach public, or to hop a corner?" It feels like that's about something beyond protecting one's land investment/ownership. But as noted above, my experience makes me have a heavy bias on this.

I think "we" should have access to public land. I think it improves peoples appreciation for it, and is a long term value. So those ideas noted above - being able to "hop" across a corner or walk/ride a horse say along a 5-10 foot edge. I'm not seeing how that creates an issue for a land owner, especially if said access was accompanied by some sort of legal protection for the land owner.

Sheriff's deputy in court: "Mr. Johnson is pressing trespassing charges because Mr. Leftee entered and exited a section of land for which there is no legal acccess. He trespassed across Johnson's corner" DA: "Mr. Leftee, how did you access that section? Is this game camera photo of you?"

Mr. Leftee waves pocket Constitution and refuses to answer. Judge finds him guilty of criminal trespass and assesses a fine.

As I said above, I dont agree with this and wish I could hop corners, but in my county and many other places, the sheriff will cite if the property owner signs the complaint.

According to the AIM (7-4-6) there are federal regulations that prohibit airdrops by parachute or other means of persons, cargo or other objects from aircraft on lands administered by the U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks and Forest Service Areas. As far as flying over designated wildlife areas – it is “requested” that pilots avoid flying lower that 2000 agl (above ground level) over those areas. So, pilots can legally fly over those areas (as it is a “should” not a “shall), but are forbidden from dropping any objects therein. Opinion – As far as the Federal Aviation Regulations – the regulations that cover these types of operations, Part 91, general aviation regulations, don’t have much of a bite when aviators fail to follow them, typically license revocation for a short period of time. In addition to this, from the enforcement standpoint – who would have the proof that one landed there a dropped someone off? Is there someone out there at the exact moment when a pilot landed and dropped someone off? Did he take a picture where his face, through a window and helmet visor, was able to be identified as that exact person? Not likely. Opinion – back to my point regarding being dropped off on private property - This is a little academic as the cost would be quite prohibitive for the average person. Some basic numbers for a R-44 – 400 lb payload (after gas for a 2 hour flight and pilot), $500 per hour. 2 hours to drop off you and your gear, $1000. If you harvest a bull, 4 hours to get you and the meat out, $2000. Another 2 hours to get the head out, $1000. So IF the helicopter is based within 100 miles of your destination, you are looking at $4000 minimum. This example is for a Robinson 44, a no frills fairly weak helicopter that has a back seat for gear, not a turbine helicopter that can go to 10000 feet and take off vertically with the above loads. For that type of operation, expect to be paying 1000-1300 per hour. To comment on the discussion of a citizen being required to prove how he came to be in a legal area and partaking in a legal activity: A LEO can conduct a consensual encounter with a citizen and ask questions at any time. The citizen can terminate the encounter at any time, although most are unaware of this. So, a LEO can come up on a hunter and ask how he arrived at his location. At this point the hunter should establish if he is free to leave or if he is being detained. If he is being detained and he is being questioned, the LEO is required to read the suspects Miranda warnings. If he is not free to leave and the officer asks INCRIMINATING questions, any answers to those questions will be thrown out by the judge. LEOs are required to prove a citizen has broken the law, citizens are not required to prove they followed the law. An officer in the field - county officer, game warden etc. can cite a citizen for almost anything they choose, but only the judge can deliver punishment. One would hope that officers of that character don’t last long on the job. An officer charges a citizen with a crime, the DA/AUSU accepts or declines the case, and the judge renders judgement. Obviously a minor infraction does not have a DA involved, the LEO would be responsible in that case for proving guilt. Opinion – I don’t want to be in the position of having to go to court to defend myself. As a non-resident in any western state, I sure wouldn’t want to have to drive 12 hours to appear before a judge. Case in point – I was cited in Colorado for having a fire in camp. I was meeting my hunting partner that afternoon and there was already a fire in camp that was smoldering when I arrived. The game warden showed up and informed us there was a fire ban (although it had been raining for 3 days). He looked at our licenses and went on his way, 3 weeks later a citation showed up in the mail. So what does one do, pay $50 for the citation or take 2 days off work and drive to Colorado? I paid.

Re: citation by mail, I have had citations dismissed thru mail appeal to the judge...

Another thought for anyone to consider with overflying private property is the noise hazard to the private property...ie, livestock.

Most guys are not on his land... they have to cut a corner, to get to public land.,,,, the few hundred yards they are on his property, he could care less,,,, he has plenty to hunt

He says respect the land and do not litter,,,,, he has zero problems.... most of the west is being purchased by jackwads......

Those of us who live in checkerboard land where they prosecute would love to have a way to get around the peril. My girlfriend is an attorney and she hasn't been able to figure out a way around it under current law, so we would all appreciate the lesson so we can hunt these places.

Since efforts to legalize corner-hopping have failed at the state legislature level, it will probably take federal action to make it happen, then fight the lawsuits, and considering how disfunctional our federal gubmint is, that is very unlikely to happen.

Are "PART 103-ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES" considered aircraft in regards to the landing regulations? The regs seems to go out of their way to call them "vehicles" rather than ultralight "aircraft".

And a second piece of civil disobedience that gets overlooked is that it really only seems to apply to situations where there is clear intent to protest an injustice... and while BLM land IS public, anyone leasing it DOES have some rights.

So it may not be quite so simple as we’d like to think. Not that this pleases me, but reality never has been 100% to my liking.

“Interesting also, much of the designated wilderness in ID is legally accessible by aircraft as well.”

Is that unique to Idaho?

Around my immediate area of Checkerboardville in N. CO there are a few million acres of accessible National Forest, five different wilderness areas, a National Park, many large State Wildlife Areas, and hundreds of thousands of acres of dedicated open space with cool natural features and hike-bike-horse trails.

The only people who seem to care about getting into the landlocked chunks or jumping corners are hunters, and only the hunters interested in a few specific parcels. If laws couldn't get passed in WY and MT, the chances are pretty slim of something happening.

I suspect any legal challenges would go thru the court system and not Congress. Don't fear about the HOR. If all they do is investigate, we may see it turn back over in 2020. All 435 House seats will be up for reelection then.

The courts ruled in favor of USFS, so our U.S. Rep got involved, and it actually took congressional action to restore their property.

https://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/as-montana-elk-populations-grow-fwp-proposes-increasing-cow-hunt/article_c96d292d-a1a6-54ba-9145-45b174ecfe27.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share

As Montana elk populations grow, FWP proposes increasing cow hunt, reducing bull hunt

BRETT FRENCH [email protected] 3 hrs ago

With elk populations continuing to grow in five Montana hunting districts “egregiously over-objective,” Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is proposing to increase hunter access to antlerless tags and reduce some bull elk hunting opportunities.

The proposals will go to the Fish and Wildlife Commission when it meets Monday in Helena. The meeting starts at 8 a.m. and can be watched at regional headquarters or listened to online.

The proposals target hunting districts near the Big and Little Snowy mountains and along the eastern side of the Crazy and Little Belt mountains, which are meeting only 43 to 68 percent of their antlerless elk harvest objectives. In Hunting Districts 411, 511 and 530 around the Snowies the elk population is estimated at about 7,300. That figure is 918 percent over the population objective of 800 elk.

“If we meet the harvest criteria it only stops the population from growing,” said John Vore, FWP’s Game Management Bureau chief. “Even if we doubled the harvest it would take a couple of years to lower the population.”

Access

Republican lawmakers narrowly passed legislation in 2003 requiring FWP to manage to population objectives that are based on landowner tolerance, not what the land can biologically support. But that has proven complicated in areas with large swaths of private land where public hunters are not allowed access, or public access is limited. Even where access is allowed, elk will migrate off any property where they are being hunted and hide out on nearby land where hunting isn’t allowed.

“Access is definitely a big issue in many of these places,” Vore said. “We could have elk season all year around and allow hunters to shoot 10 elk,” but without access to the animals even that would fail.

As proof that elk are a difficult animal to kill, consider that in 2016 only 12 percent of Montana’s roughly 113,500 elk hunters were successful.

In response to growing elk populations, two years ago FWP instituted an elk shoulder season that allows hunting in the fall before the archery season, in between the archery and rifle season and after the rifle season in 43 hunting districts where elk were over objective.

The extended season has demonstrated some success. “In the last two years 32 percent of adult cow (elk) harvest totaling 590 cows in these five HDs was during shoulder seasons,” according to FWP. More B tags

Under the proposals, FWP would make an unlimited number of antlerless elk B licenses available for purchase over the counter in the hunting districts, rather than through a drawing that has limited the number of licenses. The tags would be good in the archery or rifle seasons. Hunters could buy only one of the B licenses. Either-sex permits offered in the districts would remain.

For example, in HD 580 along the east side of the Crazy Mountains, only 1,500 antlerless elk B licenses were offered through a drawing this past season. Under the new proposal those would be unlimited and available without applying through a drawing.

Offering the licenses over the counter also allows any nonresident elk hunter to purchase a B tag. When the elk licenses are limited and offered through a drawing, nonresidents are allowed only 10 percent of the total number of licenses offered.

Whether that change would result in an increase in the number of nonresident elk B tags sold is unknown, Vore said. But last year when FWP offered doe tags in Carbon County to assess the spread of chronic wasting disease, they sold out in minutes and people drove from as far away as Washington in the middle of the winter to hunt.

“When we offer opportunity, certainly a lot of hunters look forward to that,” Vore said.

Limited elk B tags in the five hunting districts did sell out this season, he added, demonstrating that there may be an appetite for more of the cow elk tags.

Bull limits

The changes would also limit the bull elk harvest in four of the hunting districts. For example, in 580 a general elk A license last year allowed a hunter to shoot any elk — bull or cow. Under the new proposal that would be limited to any elk only the first two weeks of the rifle season. The final three weeks would be cow elk hunting only.

In the Little Belts’ HD 540, the change would mean an elk A license — which had been good for a cow or bull with brow tines the entire rifle season (no spike bulls) — would allow only spikes to be shot in the first two weeks of the season. The final three weeks would be antlerless only.

In HDs 511 and 530, on the south side of the Snowies, an elk A tag would change from allowing spike or cow harvest the entire rifle season to a spike harvest only in the first two weeks of the season. The final three weeks would be cow elk hunting only.

Only HD 411 hunters would see additional opportunity. In that district an elk A tag had been good for cow elk-only the entire archery and rifle season. Under the proposed change spike bulls or cows could be killed in the first two weeks of the archery or rifle season with an A tag. +3 Elk hunters

Elk hunters could have more opportunity to kill a cow elk next season if the Fish and Wildlife Commission approves a proposed increase in antlerless tags. BRETT FRENCH, Billings Gazette Reasoning

The reason FWP wants to focus hunters on cow elk is that they are the ones responsible for growing herds. Shooting a bull elk reduces the population by one. Shooting a cow elk, which can get pregnant, reduces the herd by two or more if the same cow gets pregnant more than once in its 10-year lifespan.

But reducing the bull harvest can hit the pocketbook of landowners who outfit their land. Bull hunts are more attractive to hunters and therefore worth more money.

“There’s some good stuff in there, I think, to help us get rid of the problem,” said Chuck Rein, a hunting outfitter and landowner along the east side of the Crazy Mountains in HD 580. “But taking the bull elk harvest out of the scenario is a pretty clear affront to the landowners.”

Rein said any notion that landowners might respond to the loss of revenue by “swinging the gates open” to allow more public access is unfounded. “That’s not how landowners are wired,” he said.

He also said that many public hunters aren’t interested in packing a cow elk out on their back, even if the opportunity were available to hunt private land.

As proof that bull elk hunting is more popular, FWP’s statistics show that last year in HD 580 hunters killed 541 bull elk when a harvest of 369 bulls was needed to meet FWP objectives. The cow elk harvest, on the other hand, was 383 animals, while 554 were needed to meet objectives. For the entire season the harvest fell more than 580 elk short of FWP requirements, even though 167 cow elk were taken during the shoulder season, which allows pre- and post-season hunting.

The elk population in HD 580 is more than 4,800 elk. The objective is 975, or more than 3,800 elk over objective.

FWP, some commissioners at odds over Montana's extended elk season Change

Some argue that the elk objectives should be altered to make the numbers more in line with the amount of elk that exist on the landscape today. Vore said that would just push a resolution of the problem farther down the road as elk would continue to multiply.

“The longer we don’t reach our objective the harder the problem is to fix,” he said.

Added into the complexity of the situation is the unpredictability of the weather. Snow, especially heavy snow, can push elk out of the mountains and into areas where they are easier for hunters to kill. But heavy snow also limits hunter movement by vehicle as well as on foot. Likewise, mild weather can limit hunter success.

Rein suggested FWP needs to be patient.

“It took us 30 years to get into this mess, we’re not going to get out of it in three years.”

JL - Correct, still am.

Aspen Ghost - FAA defines "Aircraft" as any device meant for flight, in the air. So, sounds like that would be included. RF

It infringes on private property rights which are more important than the privilege to hunt. Once even a small right is taken the rest are not far to fallow.

If the local govt/township/city/county imposes property setbacks, is that an infringement on property rights?

To attempt to do so AFTER the property rights are established is called a "take or takings"--legally . Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Interesting thought on a "taking". I never heard of that....good stuff to know. A setback does not "take" property. The landowner retains the property. It appears zoning codes are a legal taking exceptions to ensure a property owner does not infringe on the neighboring property owner. The SCOTUS has already upheld state rulings on this. Below is from Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking

"There are numerous instances where the US Supreme Court has found that state courts have reasonably concluded that "the health, safety, morals, or general welfare" would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land. And in this context the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld land-use regulations that adversely affected recognized real property interests.

Zoning laws are the classic example; see Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 (1915) (prohibition of brickyard operations within certain neighborhoods); Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (prohibition of industrial use); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 608 (1927) (requirement that portions of parcels be left unbuilt); Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909) (height restriction), which have been viewed as permissible governmental action even when prohibiting the most beneficial use of the property. "

With that said.....if the landowners are restricting access to the adjoining property of another at the property corners of taxpayer or Fed govt real property...why can't a setback be established to permit passage? Who is looking out for the interest of the taxpayers or govt?

Ike, my dad was asked to help out an ID outfitter in the 70's when their plane was under repairs for a few weeks. He flew clients and supplies in and out and we got to elk hunt. Landing the 185 on what was basically a big gravel bar on the Selway River in the wilderness area. Wild times for a wide eyed kid...... some good stories. There are actually quite a few airstrips in ID grandfathered in. I don't know of any other wilderness areas that are like that but there may be. Don't know.

Expensive.

Because that's not a setback its an easement or a Right of Way.

I encourage you to Google "Takings" or "Regulatory Takings".

It's not just rural landowners who are victims of blatant and harmful trespassing.

So the questions would be, who actually "owns" these parcels that the USFS manages in the public trust? Who would document, define, and challenge each of the hundreds, maybe thousands of contested parcels? Could it be done on a blanket scale across multiple states?

Why would the federal government go to the time and expense to survey, document, file, and then fight this all the way to the SCOTUS? What does the USFS or BLM have to gain from such a complicated, expensive and time-consuming effort? Can that chick in the BHA "Public Land Owner" t-shirt prove a compelling NEED to access a parcel, vs. just "want to", in court?

Leftee may be right that this will happen someday. But until there is a serious compelling reason to undertake such a massive legal and logistical project, likely not going to happen in our lifetimes. I don't believe a state legislature the legal authority to force the granting of an easement of necessity to access land the state doesnt own or manage.

Do you not think that adding an EASEMENT or ROW on a private parcel would be a takings?

I'm no lawyer.

Unfortunately, access for recreational use wasnt the issue it is today when this stuff was originally set up.

FAA 91-119 uses what i"ve been told is more of a "recommended safe altitude" kind of thing. A thousand feet over "congested" areas and 500 feet over "other than congested" areas.

Airspace class isn't going to come into play much flying into a BLM section. The private property airspace however may. That is the airspace you would be trespassing over on a corner crossing. Technically the corner points of private "touch" and you would be moving through their "private airspace". At least that is my understanding of their rulings.

Steve...I did, that is how I learned a bit about the "takings" and the exclusions to them the SCOTUS ruled on. That would seem to be a legal basis for consideration which parlays to easements and ROW's on property borders. I think there would be such avenues to pursue if the funding was there to litigate it.

Yeah right, owners of half of the private lands in the country are going to tolerate that notion.

RF

See if this works.... never tried an imbed from facebook..... just saw it a day or two ago..... heheheheh