# Montana Access Law



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Can this get a stickey for a while?

Gents, I just received this (like 5 Gold Star idea) and it bears your attention, even if you never plan to hunt Montana. Some of these proposed laws changes can affect another state, like ours, in a beneficial way. Access always needs defending.

The Montana Sportsmen Alliance has a bill before their legislature that would allow crossing the intersection of adjoining public land. Say 4 quarters (160 acre parcels) have 2 quarters diagonal from each other in a section. Currently you cannot step across that intersection even though they touch. This law change would allow hunters to do so. The petition will go to the MT legislature, as hunting tourism is extremely important in MT.

You sign the petition electronically. That is it. Your info is secure and no solicitation.

"Speak Up For Public Lands Access" on Change.org.

Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/speak-u ... nds-access

If you want to read the bill: http://legiscan.com/MT/text/HB235/2013

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you frequent any other boards then pass this on there.


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

FYI: it is house bill HB235. It is estimated that it will open over a million acres to the do it yourself hunter. Outfitters Assc. and some ranchers are opposed - they're the only ones that can now legally access it even though it is public property. 
Locally it is referred to as "corner jumping" or I should say making corner jumping legal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That would be great. I know one fellow who shot an elk in Montana on public land. It run about three hundred yards before it dropped. His problem was it crossed about a 100 ft wide private strip that connected private land. The landowner wanted $300 access fee. It was 30 miles around and a mile hike to get it out, but he didn't pay $300 to get an elk he already shot that laid in site. I could see the same thing happening in the scenario you presented. I can not see why they would break any law when the left foot could remain on public land and the right foot strike public land. What a crazy law. I am not surprised the outfitters and ranchers oppose changing it. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

All the more reason to pass it forward to get more coverage at other web sites. I hope they get a bazillion signatures. When I read the explaination I wondered about the "open air space" for airplanes. Some darn laws are just nuts.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Signed


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> That would be great. I know one fellow who shot an elk in Montana on public land. It run about three hundred yards before it dropped. His problem was it crossed about a 100 ft wide private strip that connected private land. The landowner wanted $300 access fee. It was 30 miles around and a mile hike to get it out, but he didn't pay $300 to get an elk he already shot that laid in site. I could see the same thing happening in the scenario you presented. I can not see why they would break any law when the left foot could remain on public land and the right foot strike public land. What a crazy law. I am not surprised the outfitters and ranchers oppose changing it. :eyeroll:


Rest assured: this old law is not just in Montana, I know it exists in Wyoming as well and supposedly in other western states.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Signed, and posted on fishingbuddy.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It is the damnest thing, but I have watched the view count on 3 different forums since I signed.

Out of apx 3200 views, only about 800 "sportmen" signed up to help our brothers in Montana.

It is no wonder why these #@(&%!* laws survive. Get on it.

Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/petitions/speak-u ... nds-access


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Done


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think the greed machine can defeat sportsmen, but I have watched them defeated by their own apathy just like gun control. They just don't know they have already lost some.


----------



## riverrat47 (Sep 25, 2010)

I signed it several days ago. I agree, Dick. Having spent 30 years in the natural resources field, I've always found that 90% will complain about almost everything, but won't lift a finger. They figure that buying a license and stamps secures their position.


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

riverrat47 said:


> I signed it several days ago. I agree, Dick. Having spent 30 years in the natural resources field, I've always found that 90% will complain about almost everything, but won't lift a finger. They figure that buying a license and stamps secures their position.


FYI: hunters/wildlife seems to be the bullseye in our Montana legislature this session. Over 130 some bills proposed concerning hunters/licenses/access etc etc - and 95% of these bills are not friendly to the Sportman's and/or wildlife cause. 
UNBELIEVEABLE

Lets just say that all the inmates are now gathered in the asylum at the State Capitol.
We are In a real chit storm and there is no let up in site.

Seems like they want to turn Montana into the Texas model of ranching for wildlife and money talks - so bring plenty if you want to hunt here if some of this crap slips through. 
You want to see a joke - go to the Montana F&G website and read the list of proposed bills.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We are between a poltical rock and a hard place in many states. The liberals worship animals and the environment and dislike hunters. The conservatives that don't worship God worship money and look at the wildlife and hunters as something for them to exploit anyway they can. I have told a few people who would like to be outfitters that they should be a different kind of outfitter. I think someone should advertise a business called Mountain Homes and put up wall tents in the moutains and rent cots for $50 day (if you want one) meals for $50 day (if you want them) , and guides if they want one for $200 day, and advertise gps coordinates. Do that with no land leasing and run the pay to play parasites out of business. Just think you could hike in with a day pack and stay for five days at a fraction of the cost and everyone wins. $100 a day for a cot and meals many of us could afford, and it would let us old guys with thin wallets and bad backs into the back country again.


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Latest update:

This bill was voted down by straight party line vote this morning and did not make it out of committe. This bill was sponsored by Ellie Hill (D) and Krayton Kearns (R).

At time of voting Kearns voted against his own co-sponsored bill as all (R) voted against access So much for bipartisan politics and working together. 
I'm ashamed to be a registered (R) today.

We ain't done yet as Hill is going to try and "blast" it out of committee on her own and a rally is being planned at state Capitol to show support. Buses are being lined up.

As Wyatt Earp said at the OK Corral. "The fighting has commenced. Either get to fighting or get otta the way"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As I stated in an above post:



> The conservatives that don't worship God worship money and look at the wildlife and hunters as something for them to exploit anyway they can.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

liljoe said:


> Latest update:
> 
> This bill was voted down by straight party line vote this morning and did not make it out of committe. This bill was sponsored by Ellie Hill (D) and Krayton Kearns (R).
> 
> ...


That is the _ _ _ _ _. The bill still has to go the floor even though it got a Do Not Pass in committee. I wish you fellows luck to turn it around. You'd think that every tourism business in MT would be pushing for that bill too, not just sportmen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For those who think this is no big deal I hope your a millionaire in the future. If not you will need an alternative recreation rather than hunting. I hear people say take a young person hunting. Why? Get them hooked then jerk the rug out from under them?


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> For those who think this is no big deal I hope your a millionaire in the future. If not you will need an alternative recreation rather than hunting. I hear people say take a young person hunting. Why? Get them hooked then jerk the rug out from under them?


No truer words were ever spoken. 
A couple weeks ago there was a "mule deer symposium" held in Bozeman, Mt. 
Result was plain BS as the outfitters dominated and speakers were from Utah.
It's called "ranching for wildlife". Everything has value and the more points something has - more value.

For a dumb little farm boy originally from Aberdeen, SD to what I see here in Montana after 30 plus years I'm not real hopeful for my grandsons to even be able to see what I have been able to enjoy.

We ain't done yet fellas - just got a couple of road blocks to dodge and a little higher hill to climb. If this thing goes into the toilet it may be time to put it to the vote of the people never give up - there is always a way to get even.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

An interesting read on access and takings:

http://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com ... RANDUM.pdf


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Dick: we have been working very closely with the legality of corner crossing and your above reference is one of the pieces that we intend to use in defense.

About the time you think you may have the upper hand or the legality on your side - hear comes another curve ball. 
A number of influential farmers/ranchers, who just happen to be R's are dead against this and their latest defense is "A lot and maybe the majority of the corners are not marked or have a survey stake. 
Modern GPS are not full proof and are only accurate to X numer of yards/feet".

This whole thing stinks and it has now become a landowner vs. Sportsman's rights issue.

It does not look feasible to try and put this issue to the vote of the people should it go into the tank. It is almost better to have someone "test the law". Sad to say but have someone intentially cross a corner, get cited/arrested/fined and then let the legal court system do it's thing. If you loose at the county level, appeal to the State level, if you loose there appeal to the next highest court etc - all said and done it would be a long and costly battle.

Let's just hope they can see some common ground this week and the bill at least gets "blasted" out of committee (that means they need a minimum of 60 votes out of the 100 available )


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> For those who think this is no big deal I hope your a millionaire in the future. If not you will need an alternative recreation rather than hunting. I hear people say take a young person hunting. Why? Get them hooked then jerk the rug out from under them?


FYI: If you might think this is a far fledged excageration the Montana Governor's Big Horn Sheep tag was auctioned off this last week at the NSF convention in Reno. Went for a mere pitance --- $ 480,000.00 (Yes, this is not a misprint). Don't suppose this guy intends to hunt only public access land do you???

Lucky bidder can hunt anywhere in the State this year that has an open season.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I guess thats one thing I like about ND. Every section line is an easement. There are very few cases where the land owner can deny access.

Regarding the comment abot GPS accuracy it is true that the common handheld is not accurate enough to determine and exact corner but unless the landowner has had his property surveyed and pinned, which most probably have not it is unlikely he knows the "exact line either" and he has the burden of proof...................

I guess one could dig out the paraglider...................................

If I was a Monatana warden I'd have a hard time enforcing the current law............................


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This thread makes me feel really old. I remember seeing the first posted sign. People treated the guy who put up that first posted sign as if he had leprosy. I guess there is no shame today if your greed is displayed publicly. I can't believe this law still exists in Montana.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

When I was a kid the deer outnumbered the posted signd s 100-1 now the signs outnumber the deer 100-1.................. :crybaby:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I did as Dick instructed and went to a website where a person can sign this petition.

The website is change.com So what do they do at change.com??? Their mission staement:



> Change.org is a non-partisan organization that empowers anyone, anywhere to start and win campaigns for social change.
> 
> Every day, people who start petitions on Change.org win meaningful change using the most easy-to-use & powerful grassroots organizing tools on the web.


They have several petitions going right now that you can sign.



> Archdiocese of Philadelphia: Stop discrimination - change the football rule to allow girls to play





> Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay





> President Obama: Make a Speech in Chicago Addressing the Crisis of Gun Violence





> Walmart: Stop selling and advertising assault weapons in your stores!





> Verizon: Pull your donations until the Boy Scouts pull their anti-gay policy


Social change is always about pressure. Change.com is a tool for closet what-cha-mal-callits to find each other in the dark. I didn't sign any of their petitons.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Social change is always about pressure. Change.com is a tool for closet what-cha-mal-callits to find each other in the dark.


What is a what-cha-mal-callit? In the case of the petition in question I guess it's so sportsmen can find each other and petition against greed. That's like finding each other so you can voice your opinion against what-cha-mal-callits. 



> find each other in the dark


 You mean like sportsmen finding each other in the darkness of a bias media "blackout" of information. Gun control, Obama care, or the bias of a pro money worshiping community?

Since they have petitions for opposing views I look at them as a simple tool. I think I will go in and sign the one that says keep gays from being scoutmasters.


----------



## riverrat47 (Sep 25, 2010)

I look at the site as a library or search engine for petitions. Just like the library, check out what you are interested in and ignore what offends you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wonder where the Montana Farm Bureau stands on this? :rollin:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

What's at stake with 'corner trespass'
Print Email 2013-02-04T00:00:00Z What's at stake with 'corner trespass' Montana Standard 
February 04, 2013 12:00 am(2) CommentsFew in Montana would dispute the right we have to exclude others from our own property. We enjoy the security and privacy of knowing that strangers can't legally enter our homes, linger in our yards or otherwise enter our property without permission.

Most Montanans respect private property and ask for permission to go hunting on private land. It's part of the Montana ethic that makes our state unique.

That's why we applaud the Montana Legislature for tabling House Bill 235, which would have created an exception in Montana's trespass laws to allow the public to cross private property at section corners.

The issue stems from the checkerboard pattern of public and private land created decades ago in many Western states, when the federal government granted land to railroads. Today, many parcels of public land sit kitty-corner to one another and are bordered by two similarly situated parcels of private land.

Proponents of the corner-trespass bill would like to create pathways over private land to allow travel from one parcel of public land to the next. They describe this situation as a legal "gray area" because the law does not specifically prohibit crossing private land at a section corner. This scenario is anything but a gray area.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no assumed easement at section corners that would allow the public to use private land to get from one public parcel to the next. The Court's reasoning makes perfect sense - if the government has a compelling interest in creating a travel route through private land, then they must use the existing eminent domain process to work with the landowner and acquire the property, including paying the landowner for the property taken. It's a legal right emphasized in both our federal and state constitutions.

The corner-trespass bill would sidestep these constitutional protections and establish easements over private property out of thin air. An independent legislative legal review of the bill flagged these blatant constitutional problems with the legislation.

And the situation is far from as simple, as it's been presented by supporters. It's very difficult to find the exact corner of a section, even with a sophisticated GPS device. In fact, some of the same advocates of this bill testified to the high cost and inaccuracy of GPS devices as reasons to oppose a separate bill that would have raised the fines for trespassing while hunting.

The idea that it's possible to step from one corner of public land to the next is further complicated by the fact that most section corners are fenced. HB 235 would legalize what reasonable people consider a blatant trespassing, not only creating an unconstitutional easement over private property but exposing landowners to liability risk as well.

It's apparent that the ultimate aim of this bill goes beyond section corners. This bill would establish a precedent that the public has a right to cross private land to access public land - a precedent that some want to use to completely skirt our trespass laws. In fact, the sponsor of the bill used an example where a group of hunters attempted to cross 100 yards of private property at a "corner" in order to access public lands. That obviously goes far beyond the scope of what most would consider a corner.

Proponents of the bill misleadingly claim that it would open access to 1.3 million acres of public land that is landlocked by private lands. That's misleading because most landowners already allow permission-based access across their property.

There is no doubt that there is some public land in Montana that is inaccessible or has poor access. The answer to this problem is not to create exceptions to Montana's trespassing laws. As an alternative, perhaps the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks should spend a little bit less on using public funds to buy ranches, and instead spend access dollars to purchase easements from property owners to improve access to the public land already owned.

Montana's ranchers and farmers provide the best habitat for the wildlife that all Montanans enjoy. And most landowners are accommodating to hunters who want access. According to FWP data, more than 95 percent of landowners with big game allow free public hunting access Let's show them the same courte0sy that we expect for our homes - ask permission and respect private property.

- Chuck Denowh is the policy director for United Property Owners of Montana, which advocates for preserving traditional agriculture and the right to enjoy private property.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I like the term "most ranchers allow access"...... is that for $50 or $100...... I agree that the G&F should probably get access easements for the property but what if ranchers won't give easements? We all know that there are likely to be some ranchers that are using these areas as their own private refuges. Not being from Montana i'm not sure if there are any regulations pertaining to that type of uses or not. I'm guessing some of these areas may be also have grazing leases. Do such leases make accomodations for public access? If they don't maybe they should as the lease itself could be used as leverage.

While I believe in property rights I also believe that any person should have the right (within reason) to cross (in the most direct path as possible) any land for lawful purposes if they can do so in a manner that does not harm the property or cause harm to the owner.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> February 04, 2013 12:00 am(2) CommentsFew in Montana would dispute the right we have to exclude others from our own property. We enjoy the security and privacy of knowing that strangers can't legally enter our homes, linger in our yards or otherwise enter our property without permission.


That doesn't convince me it tells me they are greedy slobs who expect us to believe any crap they say. How would it be possible for someone to linger in their yard unless their yard is in the corner of a section up against public land. What's the chances of that? My fathers old cliche perhaps describes it: " a snowballs chance in he!!". No the people who made that statement are the worst of the bad.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> February 04, 2013 12:00 am(2) CommentsFew in Montana would dispute the right we have to exclude others from our own property. We enjoy the security and privacy of knowing that strangers can't legally enter our homes, linger in our yards or otherwise enter our property without permission.


I see no credibility in this statement. Really, comparing entering a home or lingering in a yard with stepping on a piece of dirt to get from one section of public land to another that is in all likelihood miles from their home ranch. Their argument is laughable.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> more than 95 percent of landowners with big game allow free public hunting access


That's the biggest bunch of bull droppings I have ever heard. I think it's more like 95% want you to pay them for access to public land. That's why they don't want this bill to pass. They want you (well your wallet anyway) at their mercy. If Montana hunters want a future they better understand that.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

One option might be a form of protest. Get as many groups of 20-25 hunters together as possible and cross these corners en mass. The purpose would be to get charged for trespass taking up law enforcement and the courts time. Once LE and judges get this eating up their time this may change.


----------



## liljoe (Jan 25, 2008)

UPDATE: Well guys we tried - sporstman were there (over 300), buses came from all parts of the State. In the end it went straight party line vote. R's voted no and D's were yes - with only 6 R's voting yes and all D's in favor. We have too many affluent R's in the agriculture community and this year it has been a outdoorsman's nightmare at the legislature.

Not sure where things will go from here - everyone just licking their wounds today and taking a deap breath. Been a hard hard loosing fight. Not real proud I'm a registered R right now.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 1aa8f.html


----------



## riverrat47 (Sep 25, 2010)

Unfortunately, money talks...and very loudly, to every politician, regardless of party.


----------

