Another Crazies Land Swap?

[Sytes]

Obligated... he'd be able to purchase a Benjamin pellet rifle.

Think he'd do it simply for chits n grins. Who's to refuse a new gopher popper though

Oh, I'm in, BTW. Call the gfundme, eh, the Nameless Objectivity lesson 101

 

[RobG]

Some things...

PCEC stands for Park County Environmental Council. They are the ones that found the easement on the road that crossed the Crazy Mountain Ranch that put serious hurt on the bad part of the South Crazy Landswap. The CMR was claiming no easement existed and were trying to leverage that false claim to further a very one-sided land swap called the South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange. If the SCMLE is stopped, you can thank PCEC for finding the most substantive issue raised. It is pretty silly that they are somehow cast as a shady organization because they are paying for the public meetings.

The Crazy Mountain Working Group are similarly being unfairly marginalized, especially considering they are not the ones driving this swap, although many of the members are in both groups. CMWG was invitation only because they wanted people interested in solutions. Without getting personal, the people complaining the loudest about not being included had proven they weren't going to be helpful.

One person involved in the access issue recorded a public meeting and went to the press with it trying to generate discord. That is not helpful so she is no longer welcome.

In another case, the USFS reached out to several interested parties to float the west side proposal by them. They were asked to keep it under their hat. Instead they tried to sabotage the process by publicizing misinformation in newspapers, newsletters and websites. That is not helpful.

These are the reason these people are left out of the preliminary processes until it goes public for comments.

The public was represented in the working group. Eric Hull from RMEF was an original member of the CMWG. John Sullivan at Backcountry Hunters and Anglers was invited at the same time as John Salazar from Montana Wildlife Federation. Sullivan claims he wasn't invited which is not true, but living in Missoula made it hard for him to attend. Salazar is still part of the group, and Sullivan could have been had he stuck it out, although had they known BHA was on the verge of suing to stop the work of the group I'm sure he would not have been invited.

The people driving this particular swap are a private group separate from the CMWG. The details were worked out by a firm named Western Skies Strategies. Eric Nyland, Regional Director and Natural Resources Liason for Senator John Tester recommended they contact me. I have worked a fair amount with Eric. Here is what Eric said to me:

"Jess Peterson [of Western Skies Strategies] is an old friend of mine who works on a variety of issues. To be blunt, he’s a no bullshit guy who has built a reputation around the state as an honest broker. He’s the sort of Montanan we grew up around who tells the whole story and doesn’t just spread the magic fairy dust to make things sound better than they are. These guys have come up with something that looks like it could be a pretty good product. Being a Montana guy, Jess also talked about the opportunity to maybe mend some fences in the process. I think your pragmatic views on the world could help with that in the long run. I haven’t seen a proposal quite this comprehensive, so this might be a good foundation to put some of the old battles to rest."

I especially like the part about fairy dust... and the fact that Tester's staffer thinks enough of me to get me involved early on.

The lack of public input is a consistent "belly ache" about this. Yes, they have learned to exclude those who have tried to sabotage previous work. What is not being told is when an acceptable solution is reached it will be handed off to the Forest Service for another round of public comment. This belly ache is a diversion.

Even so, the swap drivers have reached out for public input about this east side swap. Even Kat was briefed early on. That part is also not being told. Virtually everyone (except the usual suspects) were supportive of the main aspects of it, although some details concerned them. Now it is a question of what they would give up to accept the swap. They will put their conditions down, without fairy dust, and if possible will be included. If enough legitimate points are raised, I guess it will be killed and we will be left with the sh*tty status quo.

When/if a publicly acceptable solution is found it will be handed over to the USFS for evaluation and the necessary things like NEPA will be done if they haven't already. I think it is possible that congress could take it on without USFS but I don't know how that works. Unactionable belly aching is your right, but the people making the decisions know the full story and won't take seriously belly aching about PCEC paying for the public meetings, Steve Daines, or other unactionable rants. This will also be true when the USFS puts it out for public comment.

Right now if you have better ideas I can assure you that they will be considered. PCEC communicates regularly with BHA, and their condition of getting secured access up the Sweet Grass has been presented to the landowners. Unfortunately at this time it is a non starter. What can I say? Both sides need to agree to the swap terms and the landowners have little incentive to bargain.

The current lawsuit against the Forest Service is not expected to produce results other than dragging out the process. Matt Bishop of the Western Environmental Law Center is the lawyer taking the case. Talk about strange bed fellows. Google him. You may recall that the people who donated to WELC at Kat's request were thanked with an assurance that they would fight the delisting of grizzly bears.

There have been some legitimate points raised here, and you should focus on those points rather than the innuendo and fairy dust. One thing that has been raised is using the LWCF to buy the lands. That has been brought up several times and it would be a great solution (except the trails would still be unresolved). I can't say that won't happen, but at this time there are no willing sellers. I was told the Yellowstone Club approached the landowners with a big pot of money to resolve the issue but the landowners weren't interested. That is not to say that it won't happen in the future, but consider this: The Switchback ranch came up for sale and if those blocks of land were acquired much of the checkerboard would have been eliminated. Unfortunately, the USFS couldn't raise the money before the billionaire Leuchen snatched it up. I think there is significant risk in holding out for them to sell, but it is a valid viewpoint.

MWF proposed conservation easements on the properties transferred as well as first right of refusal if they ever become for sale (meaning the public would have first shot at buying it). Conservations easements can be done, but I guess first right of refusal has issues that I don't understand.

Corner crossing? Do it if you want but you are giving up 1/2 of the land that could be yours.

As mentioned earlier, BHA opposes it without securing access up Sweetgrass. That is more complicated than it sounds for a couple of reasons.

1) Even if their lawsuit were to succeed in making the USFS litigate that trail, the road to that trail still has to be litigated. Previously the road could be proven public if public money could be shown to have been used for maintenance, which is apparently the case on this road. However, last session the Rs introduced a bill that would remove that ability. According to a legislator in the same county as the Sweet Grass trail, the bill was pulled because it didn't accomplish what they wanted it to do. I'm certain that meant it didn't fully protect that particular road from being successfully litigated. You can be sure if Gianforte gets into office that bill will be signed which will make the landowners even less likely to negotiate.

2) Another option BHA has floated is putting in an access point about half way through the proposed trail using a private road. The landowner said no. Furthermore, I think it is a horrible idea because that easy access to the most remote area would do nothing but drive the elk down to private property.

Reasonable people can disagree about litigating to open up these trails with litigation, but I think the public has to think really hard about the wisdom of that route because it will only gain access to islands of public land, assuming we don't lose everything. Consider the map below. Securing access to sections 10 and 8 would require winning two lawsuits, one to secure the trail, another to secure the road. There is interest in doing this but nobody wants to spend the money. I have not heard enough interest in a third lawsuit that would so gaining to sections 12, 24, and 36 is probably unrealistic.

Therefore, I think the public gains more from the swap than gaining S8 and S10 (or possibly S12, S24, S36) because you gain the huge block of public land in the center without risk - but reasonable people can disagree and I won't pretend I'm 100% excited the tradeoffs.

Zac-K is articulate, but not knowledgeable of some of the complicating factors. For example regarding point 2, that process will happen in the future, thus it is a diversion. What is happening now is a voluntary reaching out to the public, even Kat, which is over and above the normal process. Zac-K seems level headed and if he were to reveal himself we could know who he is representing and better inform him and that group. Who are you Zac-K?

This has taken long enough to write I forgot what else I was going to say. I have tried my best to be honest but I may have made mistakes. If I have, be assured I wasn't trying to hide anything.



[edit - let me try to find out exactly how the public process could proceed after this initial commenting. I know one way would be to go through the USFS normal procedure, but I'm not sure if there is a way the normal process could be bypassed]

 

[Irrelevant]

As an outsider. I have basically two people presenting, to some degree, contradictory arguments. I don't know either side personally. When that is the case I am most likely going to side with more public involvement. Do do find it conflicting Rob that you say near the end of your post that, "...I think the public has to think really hard about the wisdom of that route..." but I'm struck by the fact that it doesn't really matter what the public thinks or wants, they're not at the table, they're not in the discussions, and the inclusion of a few people of varying opinions doesn't equate to public involvement. We're not talking about brokering a business transactions between two banks, where every sign NDA and a dozen people hammer it out in a high-rise office. We're talking about trading portions of the public estate without actual public involvement. I can't get on board with that.

 

[RobG]

Neffa3 - That is the misconception being promoted and it is not true. This is an initial reaching out to the public over and above what is normally done when crafting swaps. The people crafting this proposal are most certainly interested in public comments. I promise, actionable comments will be considered. Complaining about the Yellowstone club, etc is a waste of time so make the comment relevant. If enough informed comments are given on a particular part of the plan it could result in a new line being drawn in the sand for the proposal being accepted. There have been some reasonable issues/ideas floated here but it will do not good if they aren't submitted.

Submit comments here:

PUBLIC FEEDBACK | Crazymountainproject

www.crazymountainproject.com

(Sorry for not listing this earlier.... I'm spending most of my time countering misconceptions.)

I would recommend asking for this to go through the NEPA process through the USFS rather than legislatively through Congress. The former will open it up to much more scrutiny and public input. That latter option will give us far less say in what happens. However, the legislative option is probably going to happen if people are going to bring lawsuits. Conservation easements on the privatized land is also a good idea.

Comments are due by Friday. If someone has a good idea and can't articulate it by then I can probably get it to the right people after the 14th. Feel free to bounce it off me with a PM or on this board.

Note, I did make a couple of minor errors in my long post. They aren't very meaningful but I'll try to correct when I get a little time.

 

[JLS]

we could crowd find a little compensation for him, and then he’d feel obligated

I'll spot him some Cold Smoke.

 

[Nameless Range]

I hate to create more work for the guy, but I nominate @Nameless Range to build a GIS story map of what’s going on in the entire mountain range. I try to keep up on all the happenings there and it is a lot to keep straight between the different accesses, ownerships, ideas, partnerships etc

we could crowd find a little compensation for him, and then he’d feel obligated

LOL. I appreciate the vote of confidence @MTGomer.

I'm actually currently involved in building a story map surrounding an entirely different subject for a conservation organization. I'm also still writing monthly articles in the local paper, serving on the local county Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission, trying to be a productive member of the Elkhorn Working Group, serving as a volunteer firefighter, working for a living at a fulltime job with a part time one on the side, hopefully staying married, raising kids that are better than me, feeding a hunting forum addiction, and living long enough to try every chicken fried steak in Montana. Not trying to boast. I'm just out of time.

The Crazies issues are so damn complex. I have to respectfully decline. I appreciate @RobG's takes on them, because like a lot of access issues, it's not black and white. I do think a story map would be really cool, and a lot of different scenarios and chapters in the whole saga would be a lot clearer. I have seen surveyors pick up ArcGIS pretty quickly....

 

[Irrelevant]

Neffa3 - That is the misconception being promoted and it is not true. This is an initial reaching out to the public over and above what is normally done when crafting swaps. The people crafting this proposal are most certainly interested in public comments. I promise, actionable comments will be considered. Complaining about the Yellowstone club, etc is a waste of time so make the comment relevant. If enough informed comments are given on a particular part of the plan it could result in a new line being drawn in the sand for the proposal being accepted. There have been some reasonable issues/ideas floated here but it will do not good if they aren't submitted.

Submit comments here:

PUBLIC FEEDBACK | Crazymountainproject

www.crazymountainproject.com

(Sorry for not listing this earlier.... I'm spending most of my time countering misconceptions.)

I would recommend asking for this to go through the NEPA process through the USFS rather than legislatively through Congress. The former will open it up to much more scrutiny and public input. That latter option will give us far less say in what happens. However, the legislative option is probably going to happen if people are going to bring lawsuits. Conservation easements on the privatized land is also a good idea.

Comments are due by Friday. If someone has a good idea and can't articulate it by then I can probably get it to the right people after the 14th. Feel free to bounce it off me with a PM or on this board.

Note, I did make a couple of minor errors in my long post. They aren't very meaningful but I'll try to correct when I get a little time.

Thanks for the link Rob and I concur with your recommendation on NEPA. But if someone were to comment against the swap at all, or to take the stance of BHA (and others), where access has to be gained first before we talk swap, I get the feeling those comments won't be deemed "relevant."

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for the link Rob and I concur with your recommendation on NEPA. But if someone were to comment against the swap at all, or to take the stance of BHA (and others), where access has to be gained first before we talk swap, I get the feeling those comments won't be deemed "relevant."

I fall more into Rob's camp on this swap, personally. I'd rather get something than nothing, and in this instance, there are willing partners on both sides. I've been a part of negotiations like this since 2002 and I can tell you that voices that demand too much up front, or demand things that other people just can't commit too, will drag down the development of proposal because their intent isn't to find common ground, but to find a solution they prefer or kill the deal. In order to get a proposal drafted, you have to have people who want to find that common ground and are willing to be honest brokers in what they need from a proposal. As Rob has mentioned, PCEC, MWF, etc are not shady groups with malfeasance in their hearts - they're advocates for public land who were willing to sit down and listen to all sides & try and find a compromise that can be put into a proposal in order to take it to the public.

But more importantly to the idea that this somehow circumvents a public process - it doesn't. Any organization or group can come up with a proposal, with or without public involvement, and put it forward. We did that with the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, with the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, etc. it's a citizens proposal that gets floated and vetted, then it moves on to a public phase when and if a gov't entity picks it up. This is a wonderful aspect of our nation that gets it's roots in the first amendment (assemblage of peoples, and all that).

I have a lot of respect for folks on both sides of this issue, but overall, it's a net positive and it doesn't end the attempts to seek access elsewhere, or through litigation.

Too often we let perfect get in the way of good. This swap is good, and I hope my friends who oppose it work to make it better, rather than simply try to stop it. Too many hard feelings get made that way.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

I fall more into Rob's camp on this swap, personally. I'd rather get something than nothing, and in this instance, there are willing partners on both sides. I've been a part of negotiations like this since 2002 and I can tell you that voices that demand too much up front, or demand things that other people just can't commit too, will drag down the development of proposal because their intent isn't to find common ground, but to find a solution they prefer or kill the deal. In order to get a proposal drafted, you have to have people who want to find that common ground and are willing to be honest brokers in what they need from a proposal. As Rob has mentioned, PCEC, MWF, etc are not shady groups with malfeasance in their hearts - they're advocates for public land who were willing to sit down and listen to all sides & try and find a compromise that can be put into a proposal in order to take it to the public.

But more importantly to the idea that this somehow circumvents a public process - it doesn't. Any organization or group can come up with a proposal, with or without public involvement, and put it forward. We did that with the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, with the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, etc. it's a citizens proposal that gets floated and vetted, then it moves on to a public phase when and if a gov't entity picks it up. This is a wonderful aspect of our nation that gets it's roots in the first amendment (assemblage of peoples, and all that).

I have a lot of respect for folks on both sides of this issue, but overall, it's a net positive and it doesn't end the attempts to seek access elsewhere, or through litigation.

Too often we let perfect get in the way of good. This swap is good, and I hope my friends who oppose it work to make it better, rather than simply try to stop it. Too many hard feelings get made that way.

Ben,

Is MWF in favor of the current proposal or is this you speaking as an individual and not MWF rep? I know you are a contractor (and a good ally), but your name is synonymous with MWF so just want to make sure I'm making the correct distinction.

I've been told MWF is opposed to the current proposal until it meets certain criteria including permanent conservation easements, no change in USFS boundary, first right of refusal for public to purchase lands, and must not include language giving up the public's rights in Sweet Grass drainage. Those are excellent requirements and I applaud MWF for holding that line.

I don't think its a net positive for the public to abandon two access trails in the east Crazies for one 22-mile trail into Sweet Grass. That will make hunting Sweet Grass extremely difficult at best and and more likely impossible for most, even with stock. The new trail will run mostly north-south on the eastern border, and congested human traffic will push the elk down into private. I don't think its a net positive for the public to trade away a short trail to the last publicly owned lower-drainage Sweet Grass creek front lands for higher country lands and a 22-mile trail. I don't think it's a net positive to reward landowners who are locking blocking public trails, or a USFS who has recently decided to abandon its long standing policy of protecting these trails for the public.

I believe this is a case where the public should demand perfection - because perfection is nothing less than restoring our legal rights on to public rights-of way into our public lands. A good faith negotiation can only occur after our rights are restored, otherwise we caving into to the extortion of the landowners who daring the public to doing something about their illegal obstructions. We should allow that precedent to be set. - John Sullivan

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

Is MWF in favor of the current proposal or is this you speaking as an individual and not MWF rep? I know you are a contractor (and a good ally), but your name is synonymous with MWF so just want to make sure I'm making the correct distinction.

I've been told MWF is opposed to the current proposal until it meets certain criteria including permanent conservation easements, no change in USFS boundary, first right of refusal for public to purchase lands, and must not include language giving up the public's rights in Sweet Grass drainage. Those are excellent requirements and I applaud MWF for holding that line.

I don't think its a net positive for the public to abandon two access trails in the east Crazies for one 22-mile trail into Sweet Grass. That will make hunting Sweet Grass extremely difficult at best and and more likely impossible for most, even with stock. The new trail will run mostly north-south on the eastern border, and congested human traffic will push the elk down into private. I don't think its a net positive for the public to trade away a short trail to the last publicly owned lower-drainage Sweet Grass creek front lands for higher country lands and a 22-mile trail. I don't think it's a net positive to reward landowners who are locking blocking public trails, or a USFS who has recently decided to abandon its long standing policy of protecting these trails for the public.

I believe this is a case where the public should demand perfection - because perfection is nothing less than restoring our legal rights on to public rights-of way into our public lands. A good faith negotiation can only occur after our rights are restored, otherwise we caving into to the extortion of the landowners who daring the public to doing something about their illegal obstructions. We should allow that precedent to be set. - John Sullivan

John,

That was me as an individual. I'm not working on this issue for MWF. Im going off of conversations I've had with staff , and their letter from June of 2020. I don't think they're opposing the swap so much as not endorsing it at this time, which is an important distinction to be made. I'm attaching that letter.

I hope you can negotiate to a better place, but I still think the ask is more than the other folks can bear. If you just want to fight the fight, then well have to genially disagree on this one.

Glad you chimed in on this!

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

John,

That was me as an individual. I'm not working on this issue for MWF. Im going off of conversations I've had with staff , and their letter from June of 2020. I don't think they're opposing the swap so much as not endorsing it at this time, which is an important distinction to be made. I'm attaching that letter.

I hope you can negotiate to a better place, but I still think the ask is more than the other folks can bear. If you just want to fight the fight, then well have to genially disagree on this one.

Glad you chimed in on this!

Ben,

Thank you for the clarity and sharing MWF's letter. I think MWF's conditions for support are great. In fact they are more detailed than Montana BHA's.

Please see Montana BHA's position (conditional support) letter on current proposal. Montana BHA "would gladly reevaluate our position on the proposal under any circumstance that provides permanent public access closer to the mouth of Sweetgrass Canyon, shortening the distance to Sweetgrass Trail #122." We felt provided reasonable and open-ended options to gain our support. Im certainly not fighting for the sake of fighting, we are simply holding the line that without some open public access into lower Sweet Grass drainage we cannot support.

Good talk!

 

[Irrelevant]

This thread is a perfect example of the "why" @Big Fin

Where else would you get this kind of quality engagement on a clearly justifiably controversial topic?

 

[Zac-K]

“Actionable” comment:

This proposal is detrimental to opening Sweetgrass creek access specifically trail #122. It undermines the public’s claim to access. Any judge or lawyer will argue in the future that the public negotiated a 22 mile trail from Big Timber Canyon in lieu of Sweetgrass Creek Trail #122.

A land swap that doesn’t involve at least one more public access within the 30 miles of the eastern border of the Crazy mountains is unacceptable to me. The public landowners have watched locks and gates shut on historical access at an alarming rate around the Crazy Mtns. There is no lowline trail left.

What if Tony Schoonen Sr. had compromised on stream access in Montana? Would we be able to wade into our rivers to fish or anchor our boats, or would the banks and the bottoms of our rivers be private and off limits? Would Montana’s stream access laws look more like Colorado, Wyoming or New Mexico?

If Jim Posewitz had compromised on the proposed Allenspur Dam, the Paradise Valley would be underwater. If conservationists had compromised on the gold mine at the headwaters of the Blackfoot River, we would likely have 200 miles of river that is dead for all living things, much like the Clark Fork.
Before Montanan’s are asked to compromise our legal public access away forever to “protect landowners,” we have a duty to those who came before us to fight for it.

Threatening to circumvent the public process, NEPA and transparent public comment via the USFS, via legislative action should scare us all! Western Skies Strategies and Yellowstone Club are the entities who are talking about doing this if they don’t get their way. They have already contacted our MT legislators and threatened the FS, who’s corner do you think they are in?

My name is Zac. I represent myself and my family, whom I hope can access the Crazy mtns as I have and their children to come. I am an American who pays his taxes and part owner in the grand dream of public lands. I donate money to the Montana Fish and Game, PLWA, BHA, and have Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation license plates on my truck. I don’t have any further claim to fame or feel the need to name drop. I prefer to have a say in the lands I am part owner of just as I would the land I have sole ownership in. It’s your right to view my thoughts as “not knowledgeable”, all part of the millions of us having that right as part owners.

Just don’t try to sell me on a small group of people coming up with a plan to trade away access to our public lands without an invite, public record of what was said, who was there, and kicking out those with a different opinion. Then when I bring up my viewpoint at your “public open house” be told that is non starter and now being told I can only have “substantive” or “actionable” comments.

 

[SAJ-99]

“Actionable” comment:

This proposal is detrimental to opening Sweetgrass creek access specifically trail #122. It undermines the public’s claim to access. Any judge or lawyer will argue in the future that the public negotiated a 22 mile trail from Big Timber Canyon in lieu of Sweetgrass Creek Trail #122.

A land swap that doesn’t involve at least one more public access within the 30 miles of the eastern border of the Crazy mountains is unacceptable to me. The public landowners have watched locks and gates shut on historical access at an alarming rate around the Crazy Mtns. There is no lowline trail left.

What if Tony Schoonen Sr. had compromised on stream access in Montana? Would we be able to wade into our rivers to fish or anchor our boats, or would the banks and the bottoms of our rivers be private and off limits? Would Montana’s stream access laws look more like Colorado, Wyoming or New Mexico?

If Jim Posewitz had compromised on the proposed Allenspur Dam, the Paradise Valley would be underwater. If conservationists had compromised on the gold mine at the headwaters of the Blackfoot River, we would likely have 200 miles of river that is dead for all living things, much like the Clark Fork.
Before Montanan’s are asked to compromise our legal public access away forever to “protect landowners,” we have a duty to those who came before us to fight for it.

Threatening to circumvent the public process, NEPA and transparent public comment via the USFS, via legislative action should scare us all! Western Skies Strategies and Yellowstone Club are the entities who are talking about doing this if they don’t get their way. They have already contacted our MT legislators and threatened the FS, who’s corner do you think they are in?

My name is Zac. I represent myself and my family, whom I hope can access the Crazy mtns as I have and their children to come. I am an American who pays his taxes and part owner in the grand dream of public lands. I donate money to the Montana Fish and Game, PLWA, BHA, and have Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation license plates on my truck. I don’t have any further claim to fame or feel the need to name drop. I prefer to have a say in the lands I am part owner of just as I would the land I have sole ownership in. It’s your right to view my thoughts as “not knowledgeable”, all part of the millions of us having that right as part owners.

Just don’t try to sell me on a small group of people coming up with a plan to trade away access to our public lands without an invite, public record of what was said, who was there, and kicking out those with a different opinion. Then when I bring up my viewpoint at your “public open house” be told that is non starter and now being told I can only have “substantive” or “actionable” comments.

Zac,
Can I ask, what would be your proposed solution to the problem?

 

[Zac-K]

SAJ-99,

My proposed solution is clear cut: to address the public access in Sweetgrass Creek first. Unobstructed, historical public access restored to Sweetgrass Trailhead, specifically trail #122. If the private landowners are unwilling to relent illegally blocking public access I see no reason to reward those who have systematically blocked access, mandated signing-in and harassed the public at an amplified rate to access Sweetgrass trail #122. If we as public landowners do not demand and fight for the historical prescriptive easements we have it sets precedence which emboldens other private landowners to do the same.

As far as the rest of this proposal I see benefit to consolidating the Forest Service lands. I am not fond of giving up two sections of Sweetgrass Creek stream front (Sec 8/10), I could swallow it if unobstructed public access to Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122 was restored. Along with that condition, a reasonable reroute of trail #122 to tie into the new consolidation of FS lands quickly both to the North via section 4 that would tie into trail #125 and a fork going South via section 14 that would tie into the new proposed trail system. This would guarantee the public reasonable access at two points along the eastern side of the Crazy Mtns. There are plenty of ways to address the details of the land swap portion of this proposal, this trail reroute/forking of trail #122 is simply an idea I have. I would be willing to accept a reasonable solution that provided the public with two access points, Sweetgrass Creek and Big Timber Canyon.

In summary any proposal that does not first address the illegal blocking of Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122, restoring it to unobstructed public access first and foremost I am opposed to. I stand with Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers; Park County Rod & Gun Club; Enhancing Montana’s Habitat & Wildlife; Skyline Sportsman; Montana Bowhunters Association; Hellgate Hunters & Anglers; Montana Sportsmen Alliance; Traditional Bowhunters of Montana; Helena Hunters & Anglers; and Friends of the Crazy Mountains on this viewpoint.

 

[Labman]

SAJ-99,

My proposed solution is clear cut: to address the public access in Sweetgrass Creek first. Unobstructed, historical public access restored to Sweetgrass Trailhead, specifically trail #122. If the private landowners are unwilling to relent illegally blocking public access I see no reason to reward those who have systematically blocked access, mandated signing-in and harassed the public at an amplified rate to access Sweetgrass trail #122. If we as public landowners do not demand and fight for the historical prescriptive easements we have it sets precedence which emboldens other private landowners to do the same.

As far as the rest of this proposal I see benefit to consolidating the Forest Service lands. I am not fond of giving up two sections of Sweetgrass Creek stream front (Sec 8/10), I could swallow it if unobstructed public access to Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122 was restored. Along with that condition, a reasonable reroute of trail #122 to tie into the new consolidation of FS lands quickly both to the North via section 4 that would tie into trail #125 and a fork going South via section 14 that would tie into the new proposed trail system. This would guarantee the public reasonable access at two points along the eastern side of the Crazy Mtns. There are plenty of ways to address the details of the land swap portion of this proposal, this trail reroute/forking of trail #122 is simply an idea I have. I would be willing to accept a reasonable solution that provided the public with two access points, Sweetgrass Creek and Big Timber Canyon.

In summary any proposal that does not first address the illegal blocking of Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122, restoring it to unobstructed public access first and foremost I am opposed to. I stand with Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers; Park County Rod & Gun Club; Enhancing Montana’s Habitat & Wildlife; Skyline Sportsman; Montana Bowhunters Association; Hellgate Hunters & Anglers; Montana Sportsmen Alliance; Traditional Bowhunters of Montana; Helena Hunters & Anglers; and Friends of the Crazy Mountains on this viewpoint.

I can’t understand why any public land owner would feel differently. Well said.

 

[RobG]

Thanks for the link Rob and I concur with your recommendation on NEPA. But if someone were to comment against the swap at all, or to take the stance of BHA (and others), where access has to be gained first before we talk swap, I get the feeling those comments won't be deemed "relevant."

I didn't get a notification of new posts or I would have replied sooner. First let me say the comment period has been extended another two weeks. https://www.crazymountainproject.com/public-feedback Again, this situation is somewhat unique in that private parties are looking for feedback before they submit it to the forest service.

I can assure you that non-supportive comments will be deemed relevant if they have meat to back them up. BHA's letter that John posted is good (his editorial is an example of what not to submit). I have to say, getting the landowners to agree to an easement on trail 122 seems a very long shot, and even if they did you still won't have the road to the trailhead, but if the public doesn't ask for it it won't happen.

MWF's comment, which Ben posted, is more practical. I want to emphatically agree with Ben's statement "I don't think they're opposing the swap so much as not endorsing it at this time, which is an important distinction to be made." It is a HUGE distinction. Note that their 4th condition is part of the current proposal, but their support would require it to stay.

What is not relevant are comments like the group is getting paid off by the Yellowstone club or offering simplistic solutions, etc. Basically anything an informed person could look at and know it is BS or not even an option. Do you see the difference?

Really rock solid comments would involve on-the-ground knowledge, especially if it is new information or it refutes claims being made. Read the proposal. Follow up on the claims and see for yourself if they are lacking. Here are a couple examples from the South Crazy exchange, which was a bad proposal that I spent a lot of time trying to stop.

First, MT Gomer helped locate a road easement on a road that the proposal said didn't exist. That was f*cking brilliant on his part, and a major blow to the proposal because "acquiring" that easement was a major selling point.

Second, a couple hunters had done prior research and knew the trails to the sections had easements to them. Not even the FWP knew this. They brought that information to the table and it was huge because it was missing from the proposal.

Third, not to brag, but I knew a little about the fishery in the area and got my boots on the ground to follow up on a couple hunches. I found out they were giving away the only piece of public land with a self-sustaining native cutthroat population. Furthermore, the segments they said had fish I knew first hand did not so I got fish surveys from the FWP and included them with my comments along with a lot of other stuff that I observed with on-the-ground observation.

The Missoula Current published my editorial which was not a direct rebuttal to BHA but maybe a little more informative. https://missoulacurrent.com/opinion/2020/08/public-access-crazies/

 

[SAJ-99]

SAJ-99,

My proposed solution is clear cut: to address the public access in Sweetgrass Creek first. Unobstructed, historical public access restored to Sweetgrass Trailhead, specifically trail #122. If the private landowners are unwilling to relent illegally blocking public access I see no reason to reward those who have systematically blocked access, mandated signing-in and harassed the public at an amplified rate to access Sweetgrass trail #122. If we as public landowners do not demand and fight for the historical prescriptive easements we have it sets precedence which emboldens other private landowners to do the same.

As far as the rest of this proposal I see benefit to consolidating the Forest Service lands. I am not fond of giving up two sections of Sweetgrass Creek stream front (Sec 8/10), I could swallow it if unobstructed public access to Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122 was restored. Along with that condition, a reasonable reroute of trail #122 to tie into the new consolidation of FS lands quickly both to the North via section 4 that would tie into trail #125 and a fork going South via section 14 that would tie into the new proposed trail system. This would guarantee the public reasonable access at two points along the eastern side of the Crazy Mtns. There are plenty of ways to address the details of the land swap portion of this proposal, this trail reroute/forking of trail #122 is simply an idea I have. I would be willing to accept a reasonable solution that provided the public with two access points, Sweetgrass Creek and Big Timber Canyon.

In summary any proposal that does not first address the illegal blocking of Sweetgrass trailhead and trail #122, restoring it to unobstructed public access first and foremost I am opposed to. I stand with Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers; Park County Rod & Gun Club; Enhancing Montana’s Habitat & Wildlife; Skyline Sportsman; Montana Bowhunters Association; Hellgate Hunters & Anglers; Montana Sportsmen Alliance; Traditional Bowhunters of Montana; Helena Hunters & Anglers; and Friends of the Crazy Mountains on this viewpoint.

Well put. I guess the judicial system will end up deciding. These types of disagreements have gone on in MT for years. I hope this one turns out as a benefit for all, but lawsuits rarely do.

 

[RobG]

My proposed solution is clear cut: to address the public access in Sweetgrass Creek first. Unobstructed, historical public access restored to Sweetgrass Trailhead, specifically trail #122. If the private landowners are unwilling to relent illegally blocking public access I see no reason to reward those who have systematically blocked access, mandated signing-in and harassed the public at an amplified rate to access Sweetgrass trail #122. If we as public landowners do not demand and fight for the historical prescriptive easements we have it sets precedence which emboldens other private landowners to do the same.

Just so you know, the road to the trailhead passes through five different ranches. Two of them (Rein and Tronrud) aren't involved in the swap so they have no incentive at all to bargain, nor are they access friendly. Therefore, I don't even think asking for the road to the trailhead is something that could be put on the table. Even if an easement on Sweet Grass trail was part of the deal you would still have to deal with that road.


rg
[edit, in hindsight I should have said "As you may know..." Nonetheless, it is an important complicating factor. I also took out my counterpoint to the trail connection comment as I don't want to seem like I'm shooting down ideas. Keep the comments
coming.]

 

[Zac-K]

I appreciate that you have a role in advocating for this land swap, I am still not sure why you think you or the working group gets to decide what has “meat on it” or frankly why you are extending what you refer to as the “the public comment period”. I am very familiar with public comment and this is not it. Surely you see the hypocrisy in labeling it a public comment process while acknowledging that comments are filtered based on your definition of relevant. I think I will depart this thread with the knowledge that my view has been shared and is consistent with the 10 organizations I previously listed.

I will save my “rock solid comments”, my “on the ground knowledge (20 years on these trails)” and my refutation of your claims (particularly as it relates to sweetgrass) for the actual public comment period because It is apparent they won’t meet with your approval.

I would though suggest that you not call people or their views uninformed, particularly when you don’t know who they are or what they know, while trying to solicit feedback.