Printable View
I don't think so. Plenty of landowners think so, but there is no real law on it here, as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
And I say this recognizing I was wrong about the way the ruling in WY would go. I can definitely see that case going all the way to SCOTUS.
IIRC there was a failed bill several sessions ago to make it explicitly legal. But that’s just a vague memory and could be mistaken.
Correct. There have been failed bills to make it expressly legal and failed bills to make it expressly illegal over the past few sessions. I am actually surprised it has never been litigated in Montana, where the Supreme Court is extremely pro public access in a very wide variety of contexts, and has been for a long time (as a consequence of facing re-election, in large part), and where there are a metric fuckton of otherwise inaccessible sections.
Other than the politics, couldn't a state just condemn a 10' x 10' square at the corner of every corner where this comes into play, pay for the taking and negate the entire need to go to SCOTUS?
Yes, in fact it doesn't even need to be anywhere close to that big. I have actually been urging some public access groups to do this in MT for years via local governments. Ironically, the Legislature just this session prohibited counties from exercising eminent domain powers for purely recreational access purposes, because the Legislature is filled with fucking scumbags. But here was my theory before that happened, with references to Montana statutes:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldnew_guy
I did some (very rough) math and it seems like condemning two adjacent corners approximately 2.5' wide (to make a 5'-wide path) would only require approximately ~8 square feet from each section. So you are only talking about condemning about 16 square feet for each corner. An acre is 43560 square feet so this is only .04% of an acre for each trail segment. I can't even do the math for a percentage of a section because it is almost incalculably small.
The condemnation statutes contemplate that in addition to fair market value of the property itself, the condemnation value includes the "basis of depreciation in the current fair market value of property not actually taken but injuriously affected." 70-30-302(1). This means--I think--that landowners could argue that they have a loss of value due to not being able to exclude people from adjoining public property. The interesting legal issue is that I would bet just about anything that the Montana Supreme Court would not allow a court to consider arguments that a private landowner is injured by the mere fact that the public now has access to land it already owns, or that the landowner "lost" anything by now having to deal with the public using its own land.
not legal advice blah fucking blah
Seems alot smarter and more cost effective than paying state lawyers to argue all the way to SCOTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Is there a rationale for why they aren't going this route? I guess they have to go through the whole condemnation process, which at the local level can be an issue for some city/county governments depending on their local politics and susceptibility to losing the next election.
I can't imagine that the FLMA's are to interested either, but it also seems like an easy fix to the issue for them compared to the endless litigation route.
This article goes into a bit more detail than the other one...
https://montanafreepress.org/2023/05...ssing-hunters/
Probably because the state and local gov'ts in WY are more interested in appeasing large landowners than out-of-state hunters?
Sorry, I meant the public access groups. Are they pushing for the condemnation approach or the litigation approach that is on going?Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
FIFY. The hunting guide lobby has deep connections it would seem.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
It doesn't just seem that way. In Wyoming non-resident big game hunters are required to hire a guide or have a resident hunting companion if they want to hunt federally designated wilderness areas. IIRC the original argument for the bill was hunter safety as it relates to grizzly bears, bullshit reasoning at best. It was bill conceived of and lobbied for by outfitters for the sole benefit of outfitters.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Just saw a Billings Gazette article that states corner crossing is in legal limbo in MT. It is not explicit either way.
Wow I can't believe there's more barriers to hunting grizzlies than shooting up a school.
Both are illegal? Not sure what other barriers are in place for shooting grizzlies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocximus