Corner Crossing in Montana

[mtwarden]

it's a misdemeanor, max $500 fine and 6 months- I've never seen anyone serve 6 months on a misdemeanor

the bond is $135 (if you are cited you can pay the bond and be done), that's also the normal fine

 

[cornfedkiller]

It dates back to the time of the railroad land grants, where railroads were rewarded with alternating sections of land for putting a railroad through federal lands. Lands were granted by square sections, and folks that did things the government wanted (putting in a railroad, developing a mine, homesteading, etc.) typically were granted complete sections of land.

I figured it was something like that. Thank you!

 

[Matt Cashell]

The Causby case has a very different fact pattern than a corner crossing. The US was buzzing military aircraft at 80 feet above the landowner's property, killing his livestock etc. and rendering the land totally uninhabitable. It's a different situation from stepping from one piece of public land to another piece of public land.

I agree completely. This is just the precedent case cited by attorney's I have talked to on this issue that held airspace in some capacity is owned by the landowner. I actually believe this case leaves an opening for corner crossing with this language:

"there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner's full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it."

This leads to the question of whether or not stepping over a tiny corner of a landowner's property subtracts from the full enjoyment of it. My contention would be no. I think a landowner making that claim is objectively unreasonable. Inversely, I believe that the landowner is interferring with the public's full enjoyment of their airspace over the public land.

I wouldn't count on this holding to be applied in a corner crossing case. The reasoning in the holding isn't particularly applicable to corner crossings.

I would bet the house that this case would be referenced in any arguments made by the landowner, should a corner crossing case go to appellate review. THEY will contend that it applies directly. However, I fully agree with you. Nobody crossing a corner is killing somebody's chickens, waking them up from sleep, or making their property "uninhabitable" as referenced in the Causby decision.

We are in agreement, ssssnake529. I think it is just the worry that this case would be applied badly to corner crossing that makes attorneys gun-shy about it. The truth is, as mentioned often in this thread, that it isn't settled. The safest bet is to not corner cross, as I mentioned before. Yet, it happens frequently in Montana, and has never been prosecuted that I have heard of. Maybe another member knows of a case, though.

 

[Mike7]

Matt,

What do you think would be the potential somewhat reasonable legal defense or explanation by land owners that they could use against the government/public's presentation that the landowners are actively attempting and actually preventing through threats the public's use of its own lands, lands which when originally set up were never set up with the intention that there would not be implied access/easement?

 

[Mike7]

Also, I don't know the exact name of this principle or if this is the exact perfect application, but when balancing competing interests of the land owner having to deal with his/her public property neighbor having pedestrian access to public property along the edge of the land owner's property v.s. the public not being able to access their own property in any fashion at all, it seems that the public wins easily on that account...I think.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Matt,

What do you think would be the potential somewhat reasonable legal defense or explanation by land owners that they could use against the government/public's presentation that the landowners are actively attempting and actually preventing through threats the public's use of its own lands, lands which when originally set up were never set up with the intention that there would not be implied access/easement?

I would speculate they would simply say no such Easement by Strict Necessity or Prescriptive Easement exists. Courts in Montana are certainly reluctant to grant such easements, even in strictly private land matters.

I think the argument of "not stepping foot" on private land is a stronger one, but that is my opinion.

Also, I don't know the exact name of this principle or if this is the exact perfect application, but when balancing competing interests of the land owner having to deal with his/her public property neighbor having pedestrian access to public property along the edge of the land owner's property v.s. the public not being able to access their own property in any fashion at all, it seems that the public wins easily on that account...I think.

On this I think you are saying something similar to my third paragraph in post 63.

 

[netman]

How about a daily use permit to be on public property. Set up a self serve permit station in a couple places in each county. So if you plan to hunt on BLM/public property you have to obtain a daily use permit. The permit is kept with you during your public land use. This is needed for all uses ranching included.
So when Mtwarden is out patrolling in his commission and observes a rancher chasing cattle on BLM property he can stop and ask the rancher for his daily use permit. If no permit Mtwarden can use his discretion to say “sign here press hard five copies” or stop what your doing and go get a daily use permit for yourself and have your hands go get one too.
My thoughts is if the private landowner has to go through all of this effort we might be able to get them off their locked down stance.
Imagine if a land owner had to drive ten to fifteen Miles’s on a regular basis to get a daily use permit to go chase a couple cows off BLM property and back onto his property.
Or take his five guided clients over to get a daily use permit to access public property.
I’m not against landowners rights in any way. My problem is when they are blocking huge tracts or small tracts from public access for their own gain.

 

[Hunter Sargent]

Because there are a lot jerks that think that they have the right to do something just because they want to. It doesn't matter to them who's rights are violated as long as they get to do what they want, sort of like a little kid that hasn't learned to share yet.

I highlighted the part that pertains as much to private land owners as it does to public land owners.

 

[ssssnake529]

I'm hunting Idaho and Montana next fall.

This thread has convinced me that I am going to seek out and specifically hunt on public lands that are only accessible via corner crossing.

 

[NoWiser]

I corner crossed in SE Montana a few years ago on a mule deer hunt. I actually found a pin at the property corner using my GPS, so there was no doubt where the corner was. The fine would have been much cheaper than the trespass fee that the adjacent landowner/outfitter charged. I can't say I lost a minute of sleep over it.

 

[6.5x284]

Find a stream and follow it in!

 

[tracker12]

Well I would think if you are from Texas and go before the local prosecutor with a complaint from a local rancher your chances of beating the case are pretty slim.

 

[Odell]

Wow a land owner who cant grant a 24" easement for someone to walk through. To a public property just sounds wrong.

Agreed. If you’re blocking corner crossing from public to public you are a dirt bag and a thief.

I have a tiny bit of experience with this in WA state, a neighbor stuck their hand through my fence, claimed my dog bit her, then sued me. It boiled down to the issue of trespass vrs the strict liability applied to dog owners. After two years i won, they ruled that putting your hand in the air on to private property was indeed trespassing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk