Corner Jumping

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,706
From what I read in the Randy Newberg thread, it looks like there is a "corner jumping" battle in Montana.

I didn't want to hijack that thread... Can somebody fill me in on what is going on there? Also, what happened with the Wyoming corner jumping battle a while ago?

By the way, I support the legalization of corner jumping. I understand the argument against it (which is only theoretical in the sense that the properties meet at a finite point and extend upward to infinity); but I support legalized corner jumping for two reasons. 1) There is no harm to the landowners on the adjoining properties. "Harm" is a legal basis for a claim against somebody in civil cases. 2) The public benefit of access to otherwise inaccessible public land far outweighs any claim the landowners would have. "Public Benefit" is also a legal argument for/against various legislation.

The only valid claim I can see the landowners having is the destruction of fencing, which is a reasonable concern. The states can easily (and I'm sure RMEF, and others, would often pay for it) build ladders to legally corner jump without contacting the fencing. I'd bet hunters would line up to volunteer to build the ladders. Problem solved.

Grizzly
 
"Problem solved."


How do you deal with fatalities, injury, destruction of property, and liability. Its a lot more complicated than you would think.
 
'How do you deal with fatalities, injury, destruction of property, and liability. Its a lot more complicated than you would think"

lmao..... What a maroon....... Terry
 
Care to elaborate Terry or do you just want to call people names. If its not that big of a deal maybe you can pay the legal fees everytime it becomes a problem.
 
What the hell is corner jumping? That like "kinda" trespassing? Sorry for seeming like a water head but never heard of that here in Kansas.
 
Corner Jumping is when there is a point where 4 parcels of land meet. The two offsetting corners are public, the other two are private.

You can technically step from public to public without touching private, but from a theoretical standpoint you have to cross the airspace above the private. Landowners sometimes use this theory to "post" public property by deeming it inaccessible.

The problem with Tristate's concern is that various state game agencies have already remedied any liability issue with current "Hunter Access Points" they have set up to cross private property (usually to access a stream or river from a road).

The liability issues have already been considered and have been deemed unfounded.
 
Is there anybody that can show us a case where some one was prosecuted for crossing from public to public where two privte 90s come together point to point?
 
Ah...well I see no problem with that and would invite a landowner to attend a yoga class, so he/she gain the necessary flexibility to go screw themselves if they had a problem.
Kidding of course. Yoga doesn't help that much. Actually I can't see a landowner making a stink about 6 inches. But then again, I am not there...
 
grizzly & others:

House Bill 235 was sponsored by Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, and was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee to address that issue and make it legal for the public to cross from one section of public land to another at the corner of that land. The bill was opposed by the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Cattlewomen and the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. It was tabled in committee. The main points of opposition to the bill are that it would violate the private property rights of adjacent landowners and constitutes a taking of private lands.

This afternoon Ms. Hill, after gaining a ton of support from common folk like us, is going to try what they call "blast" the Bill out of the committee to have it heard on the House floor by all 100 members of the House. It will take 60 votes to do that and we should know later on this afternoon if she was successful. Randy Newberg and a bunch of carloads and busloads of people from Montana, as well as some from other states (our own BuzzH is going) are rallying at the Capitol clad in hunter orange as I type this to show their support of this Bill with hopes of blasting it out of committee so it can be discussed and voted on by the entire Legislature. If this would succeed and pass, it would have huge ramifications for opening up others public land throughout the west.

To answer the question asked by our other member, I know of one case in Wyoming where a hunter corner jumped and was issued a trespass ticket by a G&F Warden. He fought the case in court and the Judge dismissed the case. Since then the G&F decided not to issue any more tickets and I don't believe anyone else has been ticketed since that case. However, various County Sheriff Departments can stilldecide whether they want to issue tickets on a case by case basis, so it's best to see where they and the County Prosecutor stand on the issue before anyone attempts it until ther is a definitive ruling on it. I hope that helps some on this issue!
 
The six inches turns into square miles of property that they have control over who steps foot on. They want the rights to the property but don't want to pay taxes for it. Most of them sell the hunting rights to guides or run hunters themselves.

DZ
 
Thanks Topgun, I could not see in the text {HB235} where they addressed property owners liability.

With a waiver of liability added to the bill it might have a better chance.
 
>'How do you deal with fatalities,
>injury, destruction of property, and
>liability. Its a lot more
>complicated than you would think"
>
>
>lmao..... What a maroon....... Terry

+1000
 
If the property owners argument is that he owns the airspace above the land(corner) to 'infinity'....then wouldn't ANY airplane that flew over be considered trespassing?
 
The three most common accidental shootings for hunters in this state are:

1. People entering or leaving a blind.
2. People retrieving a weapon from a vehicle.
3. People crossing fences.

I am extremely surprised none of you learned any of this in your hunters safety courses. Maybe yall decided the intstructor was a maroon and you slept through it.

When some dude gets shot crossing a fence that a private individual owns you're telling me a lawyer isn't going to jump all over that????? You guys are living in fairy land.
 
>If the property owners argument is
>that he owns the airspace
>above the land(corner) to 'infinity'....then
>wouldn't ANY airplane that flew
>over be considered trespassing?

This is where the "harm" aspect comes in. From a theoretical/legal standpoint, the property owner owns a pie-shape piece of property from the center of the earth that extends upward to infinity. But, try being a landowner and proving "harm" by somebody simply flying overhead. Now if the pilot were to hover inches above the ground or harass the homeowner or livestock, obviously there would be "harm" and cause for action.

I am not familiar with the Wyoming case, but I bet a decent lawyer argued "harm" when he got his ticket thrown out.

Topgun, thanks for the updates. You're one of the guys I can typically count on for intelligent comments and discussion. There are others that just don't fill that description.
 
>The three most common accidental shootings
>for hunters in this state
>are:
>
>1. People entering or leaving
>a blind.
>2. People retrieving a weapon
>from a vehicle.
>3. People crossing fences.
>
>I am extremely surprised none of
>you learned any of this
>in your hunters safety courses.
> Maybe yall decided the
>intstructor was a maroon and
>you slept through it.
>
>When some dude gets shot crossing
>a fence that a private
>individual owns you're telling me
>a lawyer isn't going to
>jump all over that?????
>You guys are living in
>fairy land.

Yeah I learned in hunter safety to hand my gun to my friend while I crossed or unload and lean against a fence. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in hunters safety.

This is exactly what everyone knows it to be, a public land grab, plain and simple. I doubt highly there are landowners who are fighting this, I WOULD BET A MILLION that this is a push by outfitters and guides to lock up productive public land by using this stupid technicallity. Funny that Randy is involved again. I watched an episode where he helicoptered in to public land that was locked up by private. It was a blatant "in your face" by Randy, and now, if you own the airspace, no one could pull the same stunt.

Can we not bring up the taxes issue, these lands are commercial buisnesses year round in ranching and hunting, yet stay in the green belt and pay very little when compared to comparable acreage used in other commercial buisness. I am fine with that, but lets not pretend that 100 acres in a CWMU, or whatever they are in Montana, and the 100 Walmart sits on pay the same taxes.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
tristate you never cease to amaze me...how would a private landowner be liable if a hunter was crossing a fence from public land to public land...what is the diff if he was trespassing, lots of law suits of people breaking laws and still winning in court...LOTS of fences between public and private are maintained by the state or Feds.....



How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait
 
>This is exactly what everyone knows
>it to be, a public
>land grab, plain and simple.
> I doubt highly there
>are landowners who are fighting
>this, I WOULD BET A
>MILLION that this is a
>push by outfitters and guides
>to lock up productive public
>land by using this stupid
>technicallity. Funny that Randy
>is involved again. I watched
>an episode where he helicoptered
>in to public land that
>was locked up by private.
> It was a blatant
>"in your face" by Randy,
>and now, if you own
>the airspace, no one could
>pull the same stunt.
>

Hossblur, even if this bill fails and corner jumping is still illegal, you could still helicopter in... assuming you can afford it and find the pilot.

The Supreme Court ruled that "air rights" only apply to air space that an owner could "reasonably use". This is often referenced as 500 feet above ground level. With a helicopter you can stay above that airspace and land directly vertical on public property.
 
Tristate,

In most of the corners that are being discussed, there are no fences. The original argument used by landowners was that nobody could find the corners therefore trespassing was inevitable. Now there are very accurate GPS units so that argument is out. The new argument is that their air space might be invaded. I think the issue should be settled in court. Let the courts rule it either is or is not trespassing. The last thing the landowners want is a fence. They would then declare their boundries and make the corner finite! Your statement about fence crossing being a issue shows your lack of understanding of a truly western problem.
 
>>This is exactly what everyone knows
>>it to be, a public
>>land grab, plain and simple.
>> I doubt highly there
>>are landowners who are fighting
>>this, I WOULD BET A
>>MILLION that this is a
>>push by outfitters and guides
>>to lock up productive public
>>land by using this stupid
>>technicallity. Funny that Randy
>>is involved again. I watched
>>an episode where he helicoptered
>>in to public land that
>>was locked up by private.
>> It was a blatant
>>"in your face" by Randy,
>>and now, if you own
>>the airspace, no one could
>>pull the same stunt.
>>
>
>Hossblur, even if this bill fails
>and corner jumping is still
>illegal, you could still helicopter
>in... assuming you can afford
>it and find the pilot.
>
>
>The Supreme Court ruled that "air
>rights" only apply to air
>space that an owner could
>"reasonably use". This is
>often referenced as 500 feet
>above ground level. With
>a helicopter you can stay
>above that airspace and land
>directly vertical on public property.
>

I am sure your right, not up to date with supreme court rulings. My point was simply that Randy did it, and I bet it was not appreciated. Which I believe is why Randy is at the heart of another thread. Again, I know a lot of landowners, I hunt a lot of private acreage, I doubt this is a problem for them, as much as it is for those leasing the ranches hoping to lock up productive public ground, if I am wrong so be it, but I kinda doubt it. There seems to be a lot of discussion about these issues and at the heart of it seems to be a very small special interest group, usually not the owners.



"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Are you a lawyer tristate?

There is NO doubt as to why they are blocking this: because they make money from "their" public land. Pure and simple. Anyone who doesn't believe that I have some magic beans to sell you.

The liablitiy issue could be solved very easily: the state "takes" the corner and pays the landowner for it giving the public access to "their" land that the landowner currently has locked up.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>>Hossblur, even if this bill fails
>>and corner jumping is still
>>illegal, you could still helicopter
>>in... assuming you can afford
>>it and find the pilot.
>>
>>
>>The Supreme Court ruled that "air
>>rights" only apply to air
>>space that an owner could
>>"reasonably use". This is
>>often referenced as 500 feet
>>above ground level. With
>>a helicopter you can stay
>>above that airspace and land
>>directly vertical on public property.
>>
>
>I am sure your right, not
>up to date with supreme
>court rulings. My point
>was simply that Randy did
>it, and I bet it
>was not appreciated. Which
>I believe is why Randy
>is at the heart of
>another thread. Again, I
>know a lot of landowners,
>I hunt a lot of
>private acreage, I doubt this
>is a problem for them,
>as much as it is
>for those leasing the ranches
>hoping to lock up productive
>public ground, if I am
>wrong so be it, but
>I kinda doubt it.
>There seems to be a
>lot of discussion about these
>issues and at the heart
>of it seems to be
>a very small special interest
>group, usually not the owners.
>

I totally agree that it is a small group of people trying to protect their paycheck and that most landowners would not care or prosecute, but the threat of a trespassing ticket is often enough to effectively prevent somebody from accessing public property via corner jumping. Especially in a state like Montana which has many out-of-state landowners, it can be very difficult to get permission. I have hunted mulies in Eastern Montana, and I know how hard it can be.

PS. The Supreme Court case is United States v. Causby. That case reference is not for you, Hossblur, it is for the other ignorami that look for ways to cause problems on MM while never offering positive comments or solutions. I figured I'd give them the case name now so I didn't have to wait for them to call me names later, then prove them wrong and embarrass them publicly, AGAIN. That was a purely prophylactic post.
 
Just back from the hearing. Yeah, the legislature vote went pretty much down the party line, as expected.

This access rally is to move the ball forward and get a final legal determination on the constitutionality of corner crossing. We don't want an interpretation of the legal amateurs in the legislature, rather an ruling from the judiciary.

For whatever reason, the opposition does not want this to go to the next step. Since the legislature seems to not want a true ruling on the property rights issues of corner crossing, we will be forced to use other avenues.

All the defenses that claim corner crossing is a property right violation are based on the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution. If Montana gets a ruling that nullifies those 5th Amendment defenses, that will smooth out a lot of the bumps in the road for similar efforts in other states.

If a Supreme Court ruling is obtained and it is deemed to be a violation of property rights, then we move on, not wanting to infringe on anyone's rights. But, right now, we cannot get a legislature to even move forward enough that we can get to the point of a ruling.

Since no county attorneys will prosecute corner crossing in Montana; the opinion of the best property law firm in Montana has stated it is not a violation; and since the legislature is afraid to see the final outcome, my confidence in the issue is building.

The issue is not going away.......and neither are we.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Air rights for the air above the land. LOL
corner to corner should be legal then if there is no air rights.
Landowner should have his corners marked and the public land should have their corners marked then there is no problem where you have to cross, NOW if you want to landlock the public land you wouldn't want those corners marked so then you can stop people from use the land that belong to the public.
The key that the members of legislature should be looking out for is the public use of that land, I understand the Good Ole boys club still have a ton of members and that isn't to easy to do..


"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Allright fellas. I have been away for a little while so I will try and answer as many questions as I can. Somebody here claimed I know nothing here and I should but out because most of the time there are no fences anyway. Funny since pretty much everyone here has been talking about fences not just property lines. Then someone wanted to know if I am a lawyer. I am not. But my sister, sister in law, uncle, and grandfather are and there isn't one single thing listed here that we have not had legal discussions about because we are also landowners.

All that is meaningless though because yall all gave me the best laugh I could have recieved this morning. You proved that many of you are self serving, agenda pushing, hypocrites. I have spent days on here listening to yall scream like children about the evil "Mossback" and his squadron of helicopters that are ruining hunting for everyone. But then I wake this morning to see yall lining up to worship at the feet of "Randy" the white night getting to the promised land in his helicopter and sticking it to the evil land barons. You fools pick your ethics and morality as it suits you.
 
Prostate has spoken fools. Now silence. So let it be written, so let it be done. On a side note I am no heart surgeon but I stayed at a holiday inn once. Just thought I would drop that in case anyone is in need of a budget quad bypass.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Its a matter of greed,landowners have had these parcels locked down so long they think they own them,it wont last forever.
 
I must of miss this part.
"I have been away for a little while so I will try and answer as many questions as I can"

just mark the corners and they wouldn't have to worry about anyone walking on their land, seems pretty simple.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
Tristate,

I just re-read this thread. You were the first person to mention a fence. Saying that is where most accidents occur. I welcome your comedy routine. It is funny to watch you try and stir everybody up on topics that you have no understanding about. You are good at stirring the pot. A quick question for you... If a landowner puts a fence up at a corner doesn't he take public property? Given the typical western fence is a 2 to 3 inch post. His propert line is very finite. The 1/4 of the post put up at a corner would "take" public land wouldn't it? Like I said this is a very unique western problem. In most cases, there is no fence just open land. I am all for private property rights. I simply want this decided one way or another. Your fence argument is simply your way of stirring the pot!
 
The first thing I tell newbies asking about going out west to do any DIY hunting is to not depend on a fence being a boundary marker because the majority of them aren't. Good maps, and even more so nowadays, a GPS with landowner chip will keep you out of trespassing problems. Where I hunt in Wyoming I only know of a couple section line fences that are pinned with steel survey markers and they are actually in the middle of BLM tracts.
 
W.S. 6-3-303 Criminal trespass:
A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person, knowing he is not authorized to do so, or after being notified to depart or to not trespass. For purposes of this section, notice is given by:
(i)
Personal communication to a person by the owner or occupant, or his agent, or by a peace officer; or
(ii)
Posting of signs reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
(b)
Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750), or both.
GSHVDE
6



I find it interesting that the code states:

"A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he enters or remains on or in the land or premises of another person"


This code does not speak of air space, etc. This code clearly defines that you may not enter or remain on or in the LAND...of another person.

So when you corner jump, don't touch his dirt and you are ok.
 
A quick question for you... If a landowner puts a fence up at a corner doesn't he take public property?

Whether the fence lands on public property is dependent on where he puts the fence. As to whether he "takes" public property, No he does not.
 
"I just re-read this thread. You were the first person to mention a fence."


You don't read very well. The very first post brought up fence damage.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-13 AT 10:06AM (MST)[p]>A quick question for you... If
>a landowner puts a fence
>up at a corner doesn't
>he take public property?
>
>Whether the fence lands on public
>property is dependent on where
>he puts the fence.
>As to whether he "takes"
>public property, No he does
>not.


Is that your intrepretation or a consensus of all the lawyers in your family, LOL?!!! If what you say is true, then the same thing is true when a person corner jumps because they aren't "taking" away private property either. Gotcha Mr. Expert pot stirrer! I'm sure you'll be back in a few minutes with some more little "ditties" for us though as that's what trolls do!!!
 
I missed that. Fence damage and safety are two different issues but I digress. The first poster said that was the only concern he could see. I have never found a fence at a corner. Again, you are trying to stir the argument when you have no idea what the issue really is.. What about the issue of private land owners taking public land? Please spin that into a socialism argument. I have wasted enough time on you. Hope all is well with you and you have a great day.
 
Keep up the good work fella's. This is a issue that needs to be worked out in order for the public to access our public lands. I think if it means building ladders to cross a fence to prevent damage the sportsmen would step up to volenteer building them, I know I would.
I do have a question, thinking out loud. Roads, railroads, etc are built all the time going through private property, many times the property owners object to it but have to give easements or sell the land, mabey something can be done like that to access the lands buying a small piece of land so no corner hopping is involved or making somekind of easements.
 
"Is that your intrepretation or a consensus of all the lawyers in your family, LOL?!!! If what you say is true, then the same thing is true when a person corner jumps because they aren't "taking" away private property either. Gotcha Mr. Expert pot stirrer! I'm sure you'll be back in a few minutes with some more little "ditties" for us though as that's what trolls do!!!"

Did I ever say a fence jumper takes away private property???????? Care to make up anything else????????
 
"I missed that."

Yep

" Fence damage and safety are two different issues but I digress."

Yep. But both are connected to this bill.

" The first poster said that was the only concern he could see."

Yep. Thats why I brought up other liability issues.

" I have never found a fence at a corner."

Sounds good.

" Again, you are trying to stir the argument when you have no idea what the issue really is.."

Actually I am pretty sure I proved I was the person here who read the original post and you failed to do so.

" What about the issue of private land owners taking public land? Please spin that into a socialism argument."

Now you are going way off topic. Please start another thread and we can disuss this other issue.

" I have wasted enough time on you. Hope all is well with you and you have a great day."

I hope your day gets better too.
 
The public supersedes the right of the private property owner when such property comes together in such a way to prevent access to public property. The owner would therefor be released from any liability and the state would be liable for any damage by the public on said corner. Stick this in Eminent domain. Just my two cents!!!
 
It should be illegal for the public to be denied access to land they pay taxes on, period! There is no argument within reason to defend anything different. Awesome deal for the landowners who get to benefit from this but deep down they know its wrong.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never has and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
 
At least in Iowa, landowners can't be held liable when they allow hunters to utilize their property. I can only assume that at least some other states are similar?
 
Is a fence post land? dirt? nope.

This argument is as dumb as a neighbor calling 911 because his neighbor's tree over hangs his property and wants the neighbor arrested for trespassing.
 
Grizzly,

Not being a smart azz about the court ruling, I was being serious. I work in a warehouse, we don't talk a lot about supreme court rulings, but I am glad there are people in here that do, gives me something to use.

Curious, and again just shooting something out, do those same special interests that want to lock up public land have 10 ft fences? Are they as concerned about not letting in animals from the public? I always find it funny, special interests, who generally own none of the land, try to start these fights. Perhaps I am naive, but the landowners I know, whether they let in public or post there ground, would never make this an issue. Always amazing to me how far, and how much money these special interests burn up on this type of issue.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
corner jumping isn't about some-one touching the land or the post on the corner, or the insurance thing. It's about keep public land, landlocked for their benefit to use plain and simple, You can't Bullshit that any other way.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
>Grizzly,
>
>Not being a smart azz about
>the court ruling, I was
>being serious. I work
>in a warehouse, we don't
>talk a lot about supreme
>court rulings, but I am
>glad there are people in
>here that do, gives me
>something to use.
>
>Curious, and again just shooting something
>out, do those same special
>interests that want to lock
>up public land have 10
>ft fences? Are they
>as concerned about not letting
>in animals from the public?
> I always find it
>funny, special interests, who generally
>own none of the land,
>try to start these fights.
> Perhaps I am naive,
>but the landowners I know,
>whether they let in public
>or post there ground, would
>never make this an issue.
> Always amazing to me
>how far, and how much
>money these special interests
>burn up on this type
>of issue.
>
>
>"The only thing that stops a
>bad guy with a gun
>is a good guy with
>a gun"


Hossblur, I know you weren't being a smart azz about the court ruling. I merely cited it for the real jacka$$ that gets on here and spouts verbiage about which he has no clue. Sorry if that didn't come our clearly enough.

I don't know of anybody that has a 10ft fence they are trying to protect, it is much more often just a landowner trying to run a private "outfitting" business on his own tract of PUBLIC property. He then screams about "private property rights", ignoring "public property rights". Often it isn't even the landowner himself causing grief, but the person to which he has leased the hunting rights.
 
Tristate, I own a ranch in Texas, so I am very keen to private property rights, but you and I both know there are answers to the "liablility issues".

The one truth about this whole thing is that the landowners are used to being able to use this public land for their own enjoyment and personal profit. The way it is now, the "own" that land, not the public. You can candy coat it any way you like, but that is what it boils down to.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
"Tristate, I own a ranch in Texas, so I am very keen to private property rights, but you and I both know there are answers to the "liablility issues"."


Yes they are called lawyers. And lawyers cost money, and nobody likes paying lawyers so you can do some fence jumping if they don't have to. You ever had someone get killed on your piece of land? I have. Its a f#!*ing disaster when it happens. If I was having to live off the agriculture on the property I would have gone out of business.
 
"You ever had someone get killed on your piece of land? I have. Its a f#!*ing disaster when it happens"


***Must have invited Cheney out for one of his famous quail hunts, huh?!!!
 
If the issue at hand really is liability...then...


The liability would be split 4 ways if one were injured skipping over the corner.


The only real argument here is that special interest groupd/individuals, etc. want to keep the land locked up for themselves. There is no other reason. this horse was dead 10 posts ago.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-13 AT 04:33PM (MST)[p]
>
>
>Yes they are called lawyers.
>And lawyers cost money, and
>nobody likes paying lawyers so
>you can do some fence
>jumping if they don't have
>to. You ever had
>someone get killed on your
>piece of land? I
>have. Its a f#!*ing
>disaster when it happens.
>If I was having to
>live off the agriculture on
>the property I would have
>gone out of business.

Yes, I have had someone killed on my land.

But then someone can break into your house to steal your things and trip on something and sue you as well.

And, I noticed you ignored the second part of my post.... because it is the truth.

As you are smart enough to know, there is an easy answer so I will say it AGAIN v e r y s l o w ly. The state "takes" the corner, pays the landowner and builds a gate that leads from state land to state land. Zero landowner liability, 0.00001 taking from the landowner so he has suffered no real harm..........except for having the public land for his private use.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>"Tristate, I own a ranch in
>Texas, so I am very
>keen to private property rights,
>but you and I both
>know there are answers to
>the "liablility issues"."
>
>
>Yes they are called lawyers.
>And lawyers cost money, and
>nobody likes paying lawyers so
>you can do some fence
>jumping if they don't have
>to. You ever had
>someone get killed on your
>piece of land? I
>have. Its a f#!*ing
>disaster when it happens.
>If I was having to
>live off the agriculture on
>the property I would have
>gone out of business.


Sounds like you got a bad lawyer.

4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Doesn't sound like he is hurting. After all, he wants all tags to be sold to the highest bidder, so he must be rolling in money.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-13 AT 06:36AM (MST)[p]"As you are smart enough to know, there is an easy answer so I will say it AGAIN v e r y s l o w ly. The state "takes" the corner, pays the landowner and builds a gate that leads from state land to state land. Zero landowner liability, 0.00001 taking from the landowner so he has suffered no real harm..........except for having the public land for his private use."


Thats your easy answer. Just take peoples property???? Are you completely retarded or just a communist? First that costs the state money, because they have to purchase the property, and we all know how states are just rolling in money. Second it may violate the law. States can't take peoples property for any old reason they decide. Third it costs the state even more money when the landowners bury the state up to its neck in law suits. Yeah just let the burden of money and liability fall on every tax payers head so you can go hunting. Thats not being selfish, is it?


By the way two of my family members were and are the top condemnation and imminent domain attorneys in the state of Texas. I may know a little about this stuff.
 
"Doesn't sound like he is hurting. After all, he wants all tags to be sold to the highest bidder, so he must be rolling in money."


What is it they say about ASSumptions. I am not hurting for money. But I have never purchased an auction tag in my life. I have other things I have to do with my money right now. Doesn't mean I am going to cry about not getting an auction tag, and it sure doesn't mean I won't stand to do the right thing.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-21-13 AT 04:27PM (MST)[p]

>
>
>
>What is it they say about
>ASSumptions. I am not
>hurting for money. But
>I have never purchased an
>auction tag in my life.
> I have other things
>I have to do with
>my money right now.
>Doesn't mean I am going
>to cry about not getting
>an auction tag, and it
>sure doesn't mean I won't
>stand to do the right
>thing.

LOL. Hey, you pull our chain for the reaction, so turn about is fair play.

Never said you had purchased a tag. On the other hand, if you were not well healed, you probably wouldn't be pro "sell them to the highest bidder" Just making that observation. Glad I was right. BTW, I am not hurting for money either.

Notice you still didn't respond to my sensible answer to the corner jumping issue. Hope I haven't backed you into a "corner"


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
This thread is a pretty good read. In the end, I believe that the issue is the most obvious and simplest- the landowners want the public land locked by their adjoining corners... Public land which they then enjoy for themselves, and possibly profit from...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-13 AT 05:58AM (MST)[p]"Notice you still didn't respond to my sensible answer to the corner jumping issue. Hope I haven't backed you into a "corner""


Learn how to read. Go check post #57. If you want a true easy fix to the problem I think the government should just sell the public pieces in dispute up for auction on the private market. There problem solved. Now no ones fence gets jumped, plus the government just profited. They make money off of the sale and no more cry babies eating up time and money from our government.

As for whether my income decides my stance on doing what is right you are making foolish assumptions. As part of being a wildlife biologist I do what is right for the mule deer. You like many of the posters on this website are just trying to turn this into class warfare.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-13 AT 06:17AM (MST)[p]"I think the government should just sell the public pieces in dispute up for auction on the private market."

Really. Just let the top bidder have what is public land? And sell all tags to the highest bidder? Talk about class warefare.

The owner of the land: the "public", turns down your "generous" offer to take the land off their hands.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
I cant even fathom just how much land locked public land is even out there. Every one of us, from different states and areas, can think of land thats locked up. I bet its mind boggling just how much is truly out there, unaccessible to the public.
It's times like this when I want to remember,the fact I never found a fence I couldn't cross, (of course singing my favorite hymn,) "This land is your land, this land is my land....."
 
"The owner of the land: the "public", turns down your "generous" offer to take the land off their hands."


Really????? You speak for me and everyone else??? Somehow we don't qualify as the public. I keep pointing it out time and time again to people on these forums. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that somehow they are not the public and they are not entitled to just as much voice as you over the public property.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-13 AT 11:47AM (MST)[p]LongRangeBangin, I imagine there is a LOT of public land locked up in this "corner" fashion throughout the west. The disputed areas in Montana is just shy of 900,000 as I recall. Debating this issue between ourselves hardly does anyone any good at this point. The bill should be taken out of the legislature and have either the pro side or the con side challenge the constitutionality; that way we would have a court ruling, one way or the other to put this thing to bed.

www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-13 AT 02:05PM (MST)[p]
>
>
>
>Thats your easy answer. Just
>take peoples property???? Are
>you completely retarded or just
>a communist? First that
>costs the state money, because
>they have to purchase the
>property, and we all know
>how states are just rolling
>in money. Second it
>may violate the law.
>States can't take peoples property
>for any old reason they
>decide. Third it costs
>the state even more money
>when the landowners bury the
>state up to its neck
>in law suits. Yeah
>just let the burden of
>money and liability fall on
>every tax payers head so
>you can go hunting.
>Thats not being selfish, is
>it?
>
>
>By the way two of my
>family members were and are
>the top condemnation and imminent
>domain attorneys in the state
>of Texas. I may
>know a little about this
>stuff.

Retarded? Funny how it has digressed to namecalling now.

Corner jumping is like a "box of chocolates", you never know have many ASSumptions it will bring out.

Communist, me? A doctor with a conservative repuplican agenda and a ranch owner: not likely

Yeah, I finally found #57. Glad you and your prestigious family has it all figured out. I can see where losing 0.01 of an acre (gate for a horse/person to go through) would be an arduous burden to bear a be reason to sue. Everything comes down to you trying to scare people with lawyers and liablity when we know the real reason is that you are on the side of those trying to keep public land locked away from the public. Wonder why that is? Because it is the "right" thing to do, or because you/your family has a vested interest in your point of view?

What part of public don't you understand?


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
>"Soryy, but can't read what isn't
>there (#57)"
>
>Denial. It ani't just a
>river in Egypt.

LOL, Ok so it was out of order.

Anyway, done talking to you. I have made my position clear as have you, so we will agree to dissagree.


txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
"What part of public don't you understand?"


What do you not understand about I AM THE PUBLIC! LANDOWNERS ARE THE PUBLIC! Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are scratched off the roles.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-22-13 AT 05:56PM (MST)[p]>"What part of public don't you
>understand?"
>
>
>What do you not understand about
>I AM THE PUBLIC!
>LANDOWNERS ARE THE PUBLIC!
>Just because you don't agree
>with them doesn't mean that
>they are scratched off the
>roles.

I understand it very well! I am sure that 99% of the public that owns landocked public land feels the same way you do.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
Luckily I live in Idaho where it is the landowners burden to properly post the land, unlike many states where the burden is solely on the individual. That said, I noticed while scouting for places to hunt for Antelope in Wyoming just how much BLM is held in HUGE tracts of checkerboard with private landowners. We don't have much of that here, but I imagine this is a huge portion of the issue. I can't imagine more than 1-2% of that checkerboard land is even fenced so from a practical stance any argument about fences or liability related to them is moot. I doubt that it's just the outfitters leasing the land either, as those ranchers don't want people mixed in "their" checkerboard.

Now having said all that I do understand the issues for landowners where they have put in infrastructure including maintaining roads, culverts, water tanks, etc. on public ground that recreational users don't help maintain. I think in these situations fee's from licenses might go to help defray this maintenance, but that should not stop what is logical access.
 
If I was a landowner and I thought corner jumping was illegal, I sure wouldn't want to try and prosecute. Just think how bad it would be for the landowner(s) if precedence was set if the DA refused to prosecute. Everyone would flood their property after that. I live in Wyoming and wouldn't think twice about corner jumping. If the landowner confronts me on state,blm, or national forest and wants to argue how I got there, he's in violation of hunter harassment. Also, burden of proof is on the state and if they didn't see the exact place I crossed, then how can they (state/county/landowner) prove I trespassed? Lastly, here in Wyoming it wouldn't be criminal trespass, doesn't fit.
 
If the point of the corner is a "finite point", then wouldn't any private landowners fence or fence post be trespassing on the public land?
 
No, when two entities have a common border, the fence is built on the property line, so 1/2 is on one side and 1/2 is on the other side.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
If thats communism, what the heck, our country is basically there now. Lets do it. All aside, I like your idea TXhunter. Could go that route or a easement. No property would be taken in an easement.
 
"Could go that route or a easement. No property would be taken in an easement."

Hows that? Unless the easement was platted before the property was sold and allready in existance, then you have to take the property surface rights to create the easement.
 
"When roads or railways are built, they go through private and public lands."

When roads and railways are built they are not built for the sole purpose of you and mee gettin to go hunting.
 
>"When roads or railways are built,
>they go through private and
>public lands."
>
>When roads and railways are built
>they are not built for
>the sole purpose of you
>and mee gettin to go
>hunting.


Tristate, you are easily the most profoundly ignorant person I have ever come across. Here is why... Hunting is widely accepted as falling under Insterstate Commerce (which makes Eminent Domain a valid tool for ownership transfer), not to mention the federal land aspect (again, allows E.D. due to jurisdictional cause).

Even under the most egregious eminent domain SCOTUS ruling (Kelo v. City of New London) this would qualify. Kelo allowed E.D. for the benefit of a private individual's business (taking of private land to give to another private citizen was ruled legal if it benefitted the business of the grantee). What txhunter is talking about would be to grant access for the public; from public land to public land... a much lower threshhold.

Please gain an understanding of a concept before you post. You'll really help yourself out.
 
Tri, getting access to public lands isnt just so I or the avg person can go hunting. Yes, that is my personal gain but others have much to gain as well in various aspects. A bird watcher can go watch birds. A dog walker can go walk his dogs. A photographer can go take pictures of nature. A backpacker can go camping. Go horseriding, the list goes on for uses the public can gain from getting access to the public lands that are blocked off in such as corner jumping.
Roads and railways are overall for the good for the public to use. How can not letting access onto public lands in this case not in the good for the public?
 
Then why hasn't it happened Grizzly. If its perfectly legal and everyone wants it to happen, and its as easy as waving a majic government wand. Why has it not happened? And don't give some cheesy reason like evil corrupt outfitters and landowners have corrupted the system because that is a cop out. Why hasn't the states come in and started grabbing up land all over the west so you can go hunting?
 
"Roads and railways are overall for the good for the public to use."

That is not why roads and railways were built. That is an added plus to having them. The transportation infrastructure of the nation didn't have anything to do with birdwatching, and hunting. Much of the US highway system was built for defense purposes and transportation of goods.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-25-13 AT 12:17PM (MST)[p]OK. The aswser this. To your statement. Who consumes the goods that are transported on the roads and railways, the public. Who is the military defending, The USA. Who lives in the USA, the public. The roads and railways are built for the good of the public. Who benifits from all this, the public.
 
By that frame of thought the public should have complete access to your yard when they want to watch hummingbirds. Or the state can sieze your toilet and throwup a sign saying "public restroom" for the good of the public. Or They can come build a treehouse in your tree and let any little kid play there for the good of the public. Or they can sieze your business and claim they can run it better for the good of the public. Eminent domain isn't used for just any old reason to benefit the public. This is the USA, not the USSR, and although they are gradually being stripped away, property owners still have rights.
 
So what is your solution? All I read on your posts is cant do it.
We're not talking complete access to anyones front yard or my toilet as you outlined, you, me and everyone else knows that. We're talking corner hopping.
Property owners also have the right to access there land. Why cant the public property be accessed by the public?
Another alternate solution. The land that is public but can not be accessed by the public. The acting agencys (BLM, state lands, forest service, etc) put it up for sale and sell it because it can not be fully used to its potential. In turn, use that money to buy ranches or other property that is accessable.
 
"So what is your solution? All I read on your posts is cant do it."

Then you haven't read my posts.

"We're not talking complete access to anyones front yard or my toilet as you outlined, you, me and everyone else knows that."

No but your arguement that government can come swipe land for hunting rights is just as silly as the government making your bathroom a public toilet. That was my point.

" We're talking corner hopping."

Yep

"Property owners also have the right to access there land. Why cant the public property be accessed by the public?"

Because the people in the government platted the land as such. Don't blame the landowners. The public did this to the public. By the way you can access the land if you use a helicopter like Randy.

"Another alternate solution. The land that is public but can not be accessed by the public. The acting agencys (BLM, state lands, forest service, etc) put it up for sale and sell it because it can not be fully used to its potential. In turn, use that money to buy ranches or other property that is accessable."

YES! You have now stumbled onto the solution I suggested earlier. Money for the government. No more conflict over access. Problem solved.
 
I didnt say the government can come swipe land for hunting rights. Its public land that has multi uses. Bridwatching, horseriding, camping, and yes hunting is one of the uses public land can be used for. My point which your failing to see. We're talking .0001 piece of land. Roads and railroads take much more than that and no one has a problem with them taking land to build them.
What I find interesting. If that smallest piece of land was so important to them. Why dont they fence on there exact property lines? Why dont most even know where the exact location of there property stakes are? If there property was so important to them they would.
Atleast theres one thing we can agree on with the land swape theory. Its got potential. Problem with is with it that needs to be tweeked on. Ive seen 2 land swaps in the last 5 years around here. One state and one BLM project. They sell some land that is accessable.
 
"I didnt say the government can come swipe land for hunting rights. Its public land that has multi uses. Bridwatching, horseriding, camping, and yes hunting is one of the uses public land can be used for."

OK then let me restate my position. The government can't come swipe land for leisure activities for the public.

" My point which your failing to see. We're talking .0001 piece of land."

Thats not an actual measurement and if it was its still their property.

" Roads and railroads take much more than that and no one has a problem with them taking land to build them."

Now that is where you are wrong. There are billions upon billions of dollars tied up in law suits as we speak regarding eminent domain.

"What I find interesting. If that smallest piece of land was so important to them. Why dont they fence on there exact property lines?"

Some do and some don't.

" Why dont most even know where the exact location of there property stakes are? If there property was so important to them they would."

Some do and some don't

Atleast theres one thing we can agree on with the land swape theory. Its got potential. Problem with is with it that needs to be tweeked on. Ive seen 2 land swaps in the last 5 years around here. One state and one BLM project. They sell some land that is accessable.
 
Ive got better things to do that rationlizing with you. You have your views and I have mine. You sit in the corner with the minority on this subject and this issue is long from being resolved.
 
There is a lot of support for this here in Montana. I'm betting next year we get it done. It is interesting though that every hunter and angler in the state of Montana pays a fee supporting access of certain public lands (State) when purchasing a license. mtmuley
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-13 AT 04:54PM (MST)[p]mtmuley, I had to run into Miles City this afternoon and didnt catch the whole broadcast on the radio. Some bill is in commitee or the house right now the way I understood? Proposing tax credits to landowners to allow access to landlocked public lands for $500 for a mile section, up to $2000. I didnt catch all the details nor the bill #. You know anything on this one?
 
beech18, I hadn't heard of that. My fear is that most landowners with public locked up don't need the money. Bet Randy over at OYOA knows something. I have to take my daughter to hunters safety right now, but I'd sure like to know the status of this. mtmuley
 
"mtmuley, I had to run into Miles City this afternoon and didnt catch the whole broadcast on the radio. Some bill is in commitee or the house right now the way I understood? Proposing tax credits to landowners to allow access to landlocked public lands for $500 for a mile section, up to $2000. I didnt catch all the details nor the bill #. You know anything on this one?"


If this is true it sounds like a really good middle ground start. I think it encourages land owners to give the access voluntarily. I would think some will do so for a tax credit and some will not. Politicaly it is better than shoving it down all landowners throats.
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
For Sale Quality Affordable Binoculars
Replies
3
Views
319
2lumpy
2lumpy
gr8fuldoug
New Winners - New Giveaway
Replies
0
Views
159
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1157 copy.jpg
SkyRose1.jpg
40.jpg
IMG_8832.jpeg
IMG_20191218_0001.jpg
VideoCapture_20230816-174522.jpg
Challenger Bull#2(5).JPG
IMG_0934.JPG
Screenshot_20231013_165128_Gallery.jpg
6X10.jpg
E64AC22C-1D6E-4F3F-8BC1-C923ABC06E80.jpeg
20877.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom