Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Wyo corner crossing update

😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Shrapnel, I was searching corner crossing up a couple days ago and found two different laws stating it was illegal in Montana. I was going to link them to my hunting group on Facebook but lost interest. One went so far as to claim airspace above the land although it did not specify how high that was for.

Seems like insane greed to me. They are so greedy they claim land that belongs to others.

As usual Shrap is full of crap. There is no law on the books in Montana that says corner cross is not legal. There is also no law that says it’s legal. Fact


https://billingsgazette.com/outdoor...4f49.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Could you be more stupid?

That is copied right out of the FWP regulations stating it is illegal.

You can’t read and would need a brain to reason. Even as dumb as Buzz is, he never acknowledges your worthless endorsements of his mindless drivel…

Yep you are absolutely as dumb as you look. Read the link from The Gazette.

Post up the Montana code if you can. And you can’t.

Won’t matter to you though as you can’t corner cross in your truck or that wheel chair.

So you clean carpets in Wyoming?

You should have someone read it to you.

This is right out of your posted link:


“Corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana, and Montanans should continue to obtain permission from the adjoining landowners before crossing corners from one piece of public land to another,” Dustin Temple, FWP deputy director, said in the release. “Wardens will continue to report corner crossing cases to local county attorneys to exercise their prosecutorial discretion.”

That’ll soon be tested in federal court. 😉

Post up the code dough boy.

And you lied about the finding your post in the regs. It just came off the “FAQ” page not the regs you liar.


Post up the code.


Just because Temple said it doesn’t mean he is right.


Post up the code.


If it was illegal why wouldn’t the wardens cite the hunter and not just report it. JFC you are dumb.

But since you road hunt private I wouldn’t expect you to know much about hunting public.

Wow anti gun NAZIs at BHA sure are triggered easily


How many decades since you bought a hunting and fishing license beta cuck?

Lost trail works at the dollar general in Havre and services truckers with AIDS at lucky Lils across East Montana with the bisexual pedophile land Tawney

She wishes she could clean carpets

So the family tree is a telephone pole?

I stopped in at the Montana FG office and asked a Warden if I corner cross what happens direct quote
Corner crossing IS NOT legal in montana without land owner permission

Hey lost trails 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂

Unfortunately the FWP makes rules that are not backed up by law. The rule in the hunting regs against using game cameras for one. I talked to a game warden about those a few years ago. He said someone on the board put that in at the last minute even though there is no law governing it. I see it has been modified since.

This is why I personally would not currently corner cross in Montana.

This is the stance on corner crossing in Montana:

US v. Causby (1946),

Leo Sheep Co. v. United States (1979).

http://upom.org/corner-trespass-2/

CORNER TRESPASS
The term “corner crossing” is a misnomer, traveling across private property to get from one parcel of public land to another at a checker-boarded section corner is trespassing. UPOM has fought tirelessly against legislation aimed at legalizing trespass. Below are the facts about corner trespass, the threats it poses to landowners, and the case law that supports the illegal nature of corner trespassing:

1. Landowners have exclusive control of the airspace above their property.
The controlling U.S. Supreme Court case is US v. Causby (1946), which concerned planes descending to low elevations over private property. The US Supreme Court held that there was a taking of private property by occupying the airspace immediately above the property:

“If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run” . . . Thus, a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land,” and invasions of that airspace “are in the same category as invasions of the surface…However, it seems to be the consensus of the holdings of the courts in this country that the air space, at least near the ground, is almost as inviolable as the soil itself.”

2. There is no assumed easement at checkerboarded corners.
The U.S. Supreme Court took up the issue of checkerboarded corners in Leo Sheep Co. v. United States (1979). This Wyoming case concerned the government asserting that it had an assumed travel easement at checkerboarded corners, which would allow it to build roads the public could use to get from one parcel of land to another. The Court flatly rejected that claim as a violation of Constitutional projections against taking of private property.

“This Court has traditionally recognized the special need for certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned, and we are unwilling to upset settled expectations to accommodate some ill-defined power to construct public thoroughfares without compensation.

3. There is no ‘minimal’ amount of trespass that wouldn’t be considered taking of property
To cross a corner, a member of the public must cross all four corners, including the private ones. That is a trespass—a physical occupation of private property. There is simply no authority for the proposition that the government can impose public access across private land for free just because access seems like a good idea for everyone else. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that it is irrelevant what economic costs it imposes on the private property owner.

“[H]owever minimal the economic cost it entails,” the right to exclude others from entering and using …. [private] property” has been repeatedly called “the most fundamental of all property interests.” Kafka v. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 2008 MT 460, ¶71, 348 Mont. 80, 201 P.3d 8 (citing Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 539 (2005)).

Yeah well they seem to have the title Law Enforcement.
Corner cross in MT see if Buzzy and the boys back you.