Another Crazies Land Swap?

[RobG]

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.

That's a cheap shot Zac - this is a preliminary proposal being put together by a citizen group and I've never said anything different. They are looking for public feedback now, when the proposal is easier to change, instead of after it gets into a bureaucracy. This is far more inclusive than what happened on the west and south sides. It's a good thing.

I ask that you stop twisting my words. Comments won't be "filtered." It is just that rants don't provide anything that can be utilized. That is true for any public comment. In fact, I was trying to echo District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz's advice to the audience at the South Crazy Land Exchange meeting to make their comments "substantive." Honestly, I was just trying to help people make stronger comments so please stop twisting what was meant to be helpful.

I don't see where I called anyone or their views uninformed.

 

[RobG]

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.

Don't be silly. If you have something to refute about my Sweet Grass claims please do so right now before this proposal gets any more momentum.

rg

 

[Sytes]

<Question is not intended to take sides>

Is RMEF, BHA, TRCP,N(M)WF, etc required to create open to all public venues for input while drafting proposals to present to the government? Are they permitted to explore their own choices for whom they feel would best provide information fitting their interests?

 

[JLS]

<Question is not intended to take sides>

Is RMEF, BHA, TRCP,N(M)WF, etc required to create open to all public venues for input while drafting proposals to present to the government? Are they permitted to explore their own choices for whom they feel would best provide information fitting their interests?

There is no legal obligation for including anyone.

Scoping and working groups for NGOs can do whatever they want so long as it meets the approval of their board of directors.

Once a governmental agency puts forth a proposal then it must follow all laws for comment periods, open public meetings, etc

 

[JLS]

I ask that you stop twisting my words. Comments won't be "filtered." It is just that rants don't provide anything that can be utilized. That is true for any public comment. In fact, I was trying to echo District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz's advice to the audience at the South Crazy Land Exchange meeting to make their comments "substantive." Honestly, I was just trying to help people make stronger comments so please stop twisting what was meant to be helpful.

This is actually good advice, and I find it commendable you have brought this up several times. I noted you have not been telling people what to say, but how to provide a meaningful comment.

Regardless of where I stand on this, I for one appreciate your transparency and candor.

 

[RobG]

This is actually good advice, and I find it commendable you have brought this up several times. I noted you have not been telling people what to say, but how to provide a meaningful comment.

Regardless of where I stand on this, I for one appreciate your transparency and candor.

Thanks. I can see I have made the mistake of countering comments offered here which sounds like I'm dismissing them. I am really trying to be helpful by giving full context so the comment can be made stronger, but I think I'll tone it down because it discourages people from speaking up.

I should make clear that I'm not speaking on behalf of the CMAP group. But I do know for a fact that Erica is looking for ideas to make this even more appealing to the public.

Let me ask for everyone's help on one very important topic that I am concerned about. I have heard several times that the proposal will undermine the ability to litigate the Sweet Grass trail. One reason given is that a judge will claim the old trail is no longer necessary or it was part of a negotiation, etc. If this is true it is a big issue. I'm not saying this is false, but I can't see how this can be true. As I understand it, the access is dependent on proving a prescriptive easement in court. The easement is there or it is not. It has nothing to do with negotiations, etc as long as the deal does not give up any ability to prove that prescriptive easement. That "not giving up" part is a big selling point, and if it is not true the swap has to be reconsidered.

So here is what needs to be done if it is true: In addition to making the claim, find an expert unbiased attorney to verify (or refute) that this deal would cut into the ability to litigate for access. This is an example where putting your boots on the ground could make a huge difference, and you don't need any special skills to make a difference.

A second thing that could be done. Don't just say the two riparian sections (S8 and S10) are good elk habitat. Hike up to them and take pictures and acquire evidence to support your claim. Turn location services on so the exact point you took the picture will be provable. You don't need to be an expert, you just have to grab a camera and get off your ass. I remember S8 being in a steep canyon and too small to be secure enough to hold huntable elk, but maybe I was wrong so prove it to me.

Or show how the stream quality we will keep is far worse than what we will give up. I'm told the stream in S10 basically disappears under ground. Is that true? Does it still hold quality fish? Check out Hell Roaring Creek. Is it a feasible way to access the lower part of Sweet Grass creek from the proposed trail? If not, take pictures showing what a nightmare it is. That's the stuff that makes a difference and all you have to do is get off your ass and acquire data.

Again, I'm really trying to be helpful here. Don't just complain, get off your ass so you can make "substantive" comments.

rg

 

[d-edward]

Just got this in my inbox...

South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange Update




Bozeman, MT-After more than a decade in the works, the Custer Gallatin National Forest will release the final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact and draft decision notice for the South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange on December 10, 2020. The Crazy Mountains are located northeast of Livingston, Montana and northwest of Big Timber, Montana. This decision will exchange approximately 1,920 acres of National Forest System Lands for 1877.5 acres of private lands owned by Wild Eagle Mountain Ranch (WEMR) and Rock Creek Ranch (RCR). Immediately following the publishing of the legal notice, a 45-day objection period will be open for those who previously submitted official comments during the initial public comment period.



In the fall of 2019, the Custer Gallatin National Forest released a draft environmental assessment proposing a land exchange between the Forest Service and three separate landowners in the southern Crazy Mountains: Crazy Mountain Ranch (CMR), WEMR and RCR. These three ranches were evaluated together for environmental analysis purposes, though the proposal also outlined that the parcels could each be considered individually.



The Forest Service heard feedback on the draft proposal during a public meeting in Livingston as well as throughout the official 45-day public comment period. “What we heard from people was tremendous passion and a strong sense of place for these areas in the Crazy Mountains,” says Forest Supervisor, Mary Erickson. This robust public input demonstrated that while there was general support for the WEMR and RCR portions of the proposal, there were many concerns and questions regarding the CMR exchange component. The released draft decision moves forward with the WEMR and RCR exchanges but will not make a decision on the CMR exchange component at this time. Forest officials determined that more time and consideration are needed regarding the CMR exchange before making a decision on that exchange.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed via mail, express delivery, or messenger service: (to Objection Reviewing Officer, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59804); FAX to (406) 329-3411; email to [email protected] or by hand-delivery Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding holidays at USDA Forest Service, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59804. Formats that will be accepted for electronically submitted comments are: Word, PDF, and/or Excel. The objection period ends at COB on Monday, January 25, 2021.

 

[RobG]

Just got this in my inbox...

South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange Update




Bozeman, MT-After more than a decade in the works, the Custer Gallatin National Forest will release the final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact and draft decision notice for the South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange on December 10, 2020. The Crazy Mountains are located northeast of Livingston, Montana and northwest of Big Timber, Montana. This decision will exchange approximately 1,920 acres of National Forest System Lands for 1877.5 acres of private lands owned by Wild Eagle Mountain Ranch (WEMR) and Rock Creek Ranch (RCR). Immediately following the publishing of the legal notice, a 45-day objection period will be open for those who previously submitted official comments during the initial public comment period.



In the fall of 2019, the Custer Gallatin National Forest released a draft environmental assessment proposing a land exchange between the Forest Service and three separate landowners in the southern Crazy Mountains: Crazy Mountain Ranch (CMR), WEMR and RCR. These three ranches were evaluated together for environmental analysis purposes, though the proposal also outlined that the parcels could each be considered individually.



The Forest Service heard feedback on the draft proposal during a public meeting in Livingston as well as throughout the official 45-day public comment period. “What we heard from people was tremendous passion and a strong sense of place for these areas in the Crazy Mountains,” says Forest Supervisor, Mary Erickson. This robust public input demonstrated that while there was general support for the WEMR and RCR portions of the proposal, there were many concerns and questions regarding the CMR exchange component. The released draft decision moves forward with the WEMR and RCR exchanges but will not make a decision on the CMR exchange component at this time. Forest officials determined that more time and consideration are needed regarding the CMR exchange before making a decision on that exchange.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed via mail, express delivery, or messenger service: (to Objection Reviewing Officer, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59804); FAX to (406) 329-3411; email to [email protected] or by hand-delivery Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding holidays at USDA Forest Service, 26 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, MT 59804. Formats that will be accepted for electronically submitted comments are: Word, PDF, and/or Excel. The objection period ends at COB on Monday, January 25, 2021.

Different proposal, but even BHA will agree this is a big win to exclude the Crazy Mountain Ranch portion of the swap!

 

[RobG]

This is the thread on the South Crazy Land Exchange. Thanks for pointing this out to us @derekedward.

SW Crazy Mountain Land Swap: Not Good for Big Game and Fish

Hi folks, A land swap was just made public in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and Billings Gazette. I was tipped off to some concerning aspects of it a while back, but I wanted to digest the actual proposal before commenting here or in the press. Ive taken a look at it and it is still a bad deal...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Zac-K]

Different proposal, but even BHA will agree this is a big win to exclude the Crazy Mountain Ranch portion of the swap!

I don’t think BHA’s stance of objecting to the CMR portion of this trade was ever in question. Their public comment adamantly disagreed with this portion of the trade and they vigorously advocated for folks to submit public comment against the CMR portion of the trade, in my opinion the largest voice of opposition. If interested you should read their comment and watch the video they posted in opposition back in October of last year to bring this public land swap to people’s attention.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/crazylandswap

 

[RobG]

I don’t think BHA’s stance of objecting to the CMR portion of this trade was ever in question. Their public comment adamantly disagreed with this portion of the trade and they vigorously advocated for folks to submit public comment against the CMR portion of the trade, in my opinion the largest voice of opposition. If interested you should read their comment and watch the video they posted in opposition back in October of last year to bring this public land swap to people’s attention.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/crazylandswap

Thanks Zac, I’m well aware of their comments and Zac’ s video. They generated a fair amount of comments.