Another Crazies Land Swap?

[R.K.]

From this article, it sounds like the Yellowstone club is looking for a land trade with the Custer Gallatin, where 3,600 acres of lower elevation land would be given up. I hate giving Billings Gazette the traffic, but that's all I've got right now.

Anybody have insight into this one?

Landowners craft land trade on east side of Crazy Mountains

A group of landowners is developing a land swap proposal for the east side of the Crazy Mountains that would provide easier public access to forest lands while also connecting

billingsgazette.com

 

[katqanna]

Yes, it is another component of the incredible, shrinking Crazy Mountains.

Two men, not the working group, gave a presentation to our lawsuit coalition in February, on the condition that we not speak about it until they finalized it, then gave it to the working group to submit the proposal to the Forest Service, probably in April. Presentations were being made to a number of groups, shopping for agreement. Then two of the working group members made a presentation to the Sweet Grass County Commission, which is a public meeting, making the information publicly accessible.

There is a lot more to this than what is reported, and I maintain, as I have for years and what is in our lawsuit, that the public already has access, which the Forest Service also maintained, until 2017, that the FS just needed to enforce it, maintaining the trails, removing any obstructions.

This is no different than the west side, where the FS rammed an exchange thru and signed Release of Easement Interests to Guth and Zimmerman for Trails #267 and #195 (linked below) and what they have proposed on the South side land exchange. If we didn't already have the access, why was it necessary for them to release it?

https://www.emwh.org/public access/...ocuments/FS Release of easement zimmerman.pdf
https://www.emwh.org/public access/...ice Documents/FS Release of easement guth.pdf

 

[RobG]

I’ve seen it and generally it is agreeable to virtually everyone. It consolidates a lot of checkerboard with land swaps. A couple of the swaps are less than ideal, but overall it’s considered a win or close to it.

At this time the swap does not relinquish the FS claim that the two trails are public.

the Yellowstone club has been trying to get their own swap done (separate from the Crazy Mountain swap) but the FS has been dragging their feet. Their swap does not appear to be very objectionable and the YC is hoping that paying for the new trail will help their swap go through.

 

[buffybr]

I don't see how any expansion of Yellowstone Club into the Crazies would be beneficial to the public.

 

[RobG]

I don't see how any expansion of Yellowstone Club into the Crazies would be beneficial to the public.

It’s confusing, but Yellowstone Club is NOT expanding into the Crazies. They are hoping to swap some land adjacent to their current holdings near Big Sky. To help this happen they are paying for the proposed trail to be built in the Crazies.

I’ve been told the two swaps are completely separate and have to be approved independently.

of course all of this is in the early planning stages so things could change.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yellowstone club should sweeten the pot with some free Microsoft products for the local schools.

 

[Redside]

Sounds like they have a comment period open for the East side of the Crazies land swap. For those HT's invested in this plan, how do you feel about it? It seems like a good deal, but just trying to figure out what we lose.

Landmark land swap would expand YC skiing, connect land in Crazies, add public access in Madison range

Proposal enters public comment period By Brandon Walker EBS STAFF The Yellowstone Club, U.S. Forest Service and stakeholders in the Crazy Mountains northwest of Big Timber have been looking at... READ MORE

www.explorebigsky.com

These guys seem to be in favor and made a pretty good presentation of the plan here.

East Side Land Swap | New Public Access | Montana

This historic agreement would consolidate public lands and create new public access opportunities on the eastern side of the Crazy Mountains and in the Madison Range near Big Sky, Montana.

www.crazymountainproject.com

 

[RobG]

I'm really short on time at the moment. I support it since it consolidates many sections of land that aren't accessible now. The usual suspects don't like it. One thing they are saying is that we give up on acquiring access at the Sweet Grass trailhead. The swap has always maintained that the option to litigate over that trailhead must remain.

You can get a very nice overview with an interactive map here... https://www.crazymountainproject.com/east-side-land-swap

 

[RobG]

Here's a gazette article... probably the best thing is to attend an open house

Coalition unveils proposal for Crazy Mountain land exchange; public comment sought

The public can now weigh in on a citizen-generated land exchange proposed for the east side of the Crazy Mountains and near Big Sky’s exclusive Yellowstone Club.

billingsgazette.com

 

[SAJ-99]

It’s confusing, but Yellowstone Club is NOT expanding into the Crazies. They are hoping to swap some land adjacent to their current holdings near Big Sky. To help this happen they are paying for the proposed trail to be built in the Crazies.

I’ve been told the two swaps are completely separate and have to be approved independently.

of course all of this is in the early planning stages so things could change.

A little weird though, right? The YC is building a public trail 100miles from their land to helpfully get them in a swap of their own. It must be nice to be FU rich.

 

[Straight Arrow]

When the rich and famous offer up a means for acquisition of public land and/or public access, at the cost of a trade for land the public won't be able to use anyway, I see it as a real positive. To let the green eyed envy emotion skew your rationale perspective and distort the reality of the deal is not in your own best interests.

 

[RobG]

Here's a segment from our public radio station. https://www.ypradio.org/post/proposed-land-swap-aims-reduce-conflict-improve-access-crazy-mountains

The best place to get answers is the open houses listed at the end of the article. (There will be one in Livingston this Thursday).

I'm extremely busy with work at the moment, but if you have questions feel free to message me and I'll try to get answers for you. There is a FAQ on the website referenced in post #8.

 

[katqanna]

Below are the tip of the iceberg points that the working group pr is not informing the public about. I've also included a satellite image of the existing trails in orange and purple, versus the proposed reroutes in red. The 2nd image is the trail from Big Timber Canyon road, zigzagging upward, and you can see the orange Trail #115/136 to the right. While these reroutes do not change the physical FS boundary, they do shrink the over 100 year trail system circumference, moving trails to much higher elevations.

• Tom Glass (Western Land Group, Inc. representing the Yellowstone Club) was in discussions with Custer Gallatin National Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson, on a proposed Yellowstone Club land exchange in Big Sky for skiing. Glass was informed that the land they offered the FS, was not an equal exchange, they would need to come up with the value balance.
  
  
• Supervisor Erickson, per Tom Glass, directed the Yellowstone Club to look to the Crazy Mountains for the value balance needed (appalling). My FOIA requests confirm Glass met with Supervisor Erickson and Regional Forester Leanne Marten, during stated time period.
  
  
• On February 10, 2020, Enhancing Montana's Wildlife & Habitat, our Friends of the Crazy Mountains plaintiffs and attorneys attended a private meeting requested by Glass and Jess Peterson (Western Skies Strategies), involving their proposed eastern Crazy Mountains land exchange they were creating for the Forest Service. This presentation was also given to numerous groups, shopping for buy in.
  
  
• Glass stated they did not believe a NEPA process would need to be conducted and were leaning towards a Congressional legislative exchange, rather than administrative, potentially steamrolling the process and reducing opportunities for public involvement. Glass registered as a Congressional lobbyist, on behalf of Yellowstone Development, LLC, on March 1, 2020, to lobby on “Land Exchange Legislation”.
  
  
• Not only does this east land exchange ignore the approximate 100 year old public access existing trail system, abandoning a crown jewel Sweet Grass Trail to privatizers, it also moves the trails to much steeper elevations, limiting users who can physically access the trails. This proposal, as the others, ignores the fact – the public already HAS ACCESS: historical prescriptive easements, Northern Pacific Railroad grant deeds, and RS2477 public access, if only the FS would simply do their job to defend it from private landowner obstruction.

A couple weeks ago, following up on an old Forest Service communication I thought was an error, involving Crazy Mountains public access, part of which is on Sweet Grass Trail #122, I went back to the Park County Clerk & Recorders office and found more landowner conveyed public access deeds. This reroute moves the public away from stream access fishing of Sweet Grass Creek, privatizing it.

 

[RobG]

Here's the deal, in spite of all the hopping up and down and thrashing about railroad easements, prescriptive easements, etc, neither the Forest Service or the public is willing to go to court to prove it. Therefore it is irrelevant.


This is how I see it. Before swap, in the area of interest, we basically have 1.5 sections of non rocks/ice that is accessible without litigation. The accessible sections I'm referring to are outlined in blue. The red sections will require litigation to get an easement for access.

After the swap we lose the islands that were only accessible if we litigate, but we entirely block up the interior. As you can see from kat's map, we are gaining decent country, not rocks and ice.

I just whipped these up so there may be mistakes. If you see any mistakes please let me know and I'll fix them. I didn't include the trail.

[edit, my original version of the "after" didn't include that we will also obtain section 5, top center.]







---------------------------------
rg

 

[Irrelevant]

I get both sides of this debate and appreciate both perspectives. While I support more access and this exchange does equate to more access now, at least theoretically maintaining the checkerboard may make it easier in the future to use, say LWCF funds to purchase the inholdings, thus adding to the overall access long-term.

 

[theat]

It is a big NO for me.

I'm not opposed to a land swap of some kind, but I absolutely am not ok with loosing access to the Sweetgrass drainage trail. I have spent some time in that drainage, both for work and play, and it is an incredible place with great fishing and goat hunting. I know, shouldn't say that on a public forum, but if it gets more people advocating for keeping this place open for all of us, it is worth it. Permanently giving up public access to this drainage in exchange for appeasing some landowners (some of whom are also outfitters) and building a trail to nowhere would be a travesty.

Yes, I know that Sweetgrass creek can be accessed via trails from the west side of the range, but realistically it would be out of range of the vast majority of public land users. Those trails coming over the top are not very horse friendly either.

I would rather keep the situation there as it is, in the hopes that the political landscape in the forest service leadership will become more favorable to litigating or ...possibly just allowing the local forest service personnel to do their jobs of maintaining and keeping those historic public trails open instead of bending over to the politically connected landowners.

 

[RobG]

It is a big NO for me.

I'm not opposed to a land swap of some kind, but I absolutely am not ok with loosing access to the Sweetgrass drainage trail. I have spent some time in that drainage, both for work and play, and it is an incredible place with great fishing and goat hunting. I know, shouldn't say that on a public forum, but if it gets more people advocating for keeping this place open for all of us, it is worth it. Permanently giving up public access to this drainage in exchange for appeasing some landowners (some of whom are also outfitters) and building a trail to nowhere would be a travesty.

Yes, I know that Sweetgrass creek can be accessed via trails from the west side of the range, but realistically it would be out of range of the vast majority of public land users. Those trails coming over the top are not very horse friendly either.

I would rather keep the situation there as it is, in the hopes that the political landscape in the forest service leadership will become more favorable to litigating or ...possibly just allowing the local forest service personnel to do their jobs of maintaining and keeping those historic public trails open instead of bending over to the politically connected landowners.

I wish people would stop saying we would lose the sweet grass access because of this swap. For the Nth time, being able to litigate that is specifically left on the table.

 

[theat]

I wish people would stop saying we would lose the sweet grass access because of this swap. For the Nth time, being able to litigate that is specifically left on the table.

I didn't know that. How about the forest service just actually maintaining the trail and trailhead signs as well as supporting the public if/when the landowner and their law enforcement relatives try to keep the public off of those public trails? Wishfull thinking Im sure. It would sure have been nice if they had the will to do that when you used that trail. It is pretty obvious to anyone that has been paying attention to this thing unfold that there has been a massive amount of political interference in the favor of the landowners from the local law enforcement to certain members of congress.

I still think that going this route is a bad idea. Between what happened on the west side and this proposal, it just seem like a bad precedence is being set of giving up trail/road easements for something that doesn't really benefit the public. I don't care if a landowner or some other entity is willing to pay to build a new steeper, more difficult and circuitous trail that get me to the same place the already in place public trail already goes to.

Just speculation, but I have a feeling that if this deal happens, the landowner/outfitter will shut down public access on this trail. Currently they try to get public users to get written permission to use the trail, but I have used it twice without getting permission since it is a public trail on every forest service map I have seen. If as you say, there is no interest by anyone to litigate access, then public access is gone.

 

[katqanna]

Sweet Grass #122 is already being litigated, it has been part of our lawsuit from the beginning, just as the West side trail #267 and #195 has been.

Speaking of which, here is a question, perhaps an inconvenient question for some.

If the public didn't have access on the west side, Porcupine Lowline Trail #267 and North Fork of Elk Creek Trail #195, then how could the Forest Service give up access we didn't already have?

Forest Service Release of Easement Interests - Henry Guth Incorporated (#267)
Forest Service Release of Easement Interests - M Hanging Lazy 3, LLC Zimmerman (#267 & #195)



You can't release or give up what you don't already possess!

This is what the Forest Service would do to the southern end and east-side of the Crazies if these other land exchanges go through. We are currently contesting this west-side abandonment in our lawsuit.

 

[RobG]

Sweet Grass #122 is already being litigated, it has been part of our lawsuit from the beginning, just as the West side trail #267 and #195 has been.

Oh please, you are suing to get the Forest Service to sue for access. Nobody thinks you will be successful.

And even if you were successful you still have to litigate over the road to even get the trailhead, and your aren't doing that.

And even if you did that, unless you let the swap go through, we'd be back to the situation of only having islands of land only accessible by crossing large portions of private land.

There are pros and cons to the swap for sure. We'd all love to buy up the inholdings, but when that option was available a few years ago the FS couldn't come up with the money before the billionaire snapped it all up.

[edited for clarity]