Crazy Mountain access update

[Irrelevant]

I think there's a difference between a legal precedent and a societal precedent. A mutually agreed to new trail my not set legal president but every neighbor is darn sure going to be paying attention. And if the current landowner isn't paying for the entire new trail then he's effectively being rewarded for illegally blocking public access then you know everyone else around there will continue or start doing that same thing, there's little risk... "Look what Bob did, and they agreed to it!"

Now, if the landowner pays for the entire trail relocation then I can at least find some balance to the proposal.

 

[300stw]

So far I have talked regarding a public land point of view that I do not want to ever lose Public Access now from a landowner standpoint
My family and I own many sections of ground so from that standpoint if I was denying access all these years and now I'm going to Grant access I must be going to benefit greatly to have public on my property

 

[Straight Arrow]

So far I have talked regarding a public land point of view that I do not want to ever lose Public Access now from a landowner standpoint
My family and I own many sections of ground so from that standpoint if I was denying access all these years and now I'm going to Grant access I must be going to benefit greatly to have public on my property

It is good to point to the importance of private property rights as well. As someone who owns several smaller tracts in a couple of counties, one with great elk and deer habitat, I highly value private property rights. Those rights should be respected in any attempts to protect or gain public property rights and public access. Although "denying access all these years", I would be surprised if that landowner is unaware of the historical public access over those trails. But even if he was unaware, obviously he recognizes the potential for losing a prescriptive easement litigated argument.

 

[RobG]

Now that I have a little time I'd like to address Brad's editorial point by point. Bear in mind that these details weren't supposed to leave the meeting, so it is especially bothersome that the weren't portrayed correctly.

Will the historic Crazy Mountains public access and trails survive another generation? More importantly, will Trail 267 survive the next year?

On Jan. 31, Friends of the Crazy Mountains attended an unofficial meeting to discuss a draft trail relocation proposal by landowners Ned and Cindy Zimmerman. In a nutshell, the proposal recommends the upper half of Forest Service Trail 267's obliteration, rerouting it east, to the higher peaked elevations. Supposedly, this proposal is to resolve public access conflicts, due to the landowner's blocking historic public access. FOCM does not support the draft proposal and here's why.


Just as no one expects a private landowner to give up their historic water rights, the public landowners should not relinquish our deeded and historic prescriptive access rights without a fight.

We aren't giving up anything until we obtain something of equal or greater value.

Trail 267 is critical to the 100-year-old Porcupine Lowline Trail System, currently providing access by motorcycle, mountain bike, and snowmobile. Not only is Trail 267 a gradual scenic trail available to young and elderly hikers, it connects to other trails as additional access points, such as Trail 195, to the North Fork of Elk Creek. Additionally, not discussed, are the northern connections to Trail 258, crossing a part of Zimmerman land, from the Shields, and its connecting Trail 265, following the Shields River.

Note that the existing trail is open to motorized vehicles and is down in the lowlands, which is prime habitat. The reroute does gain and lose more altitude. Trail 258 is not part of this proposal so of course it wasn't discussed. I'm trying to get the status of 258, but I thought it was open.

The private meeting did not provide any materials to those in attendance, before or during the meeting, comprised of about 25 attendees. Before the one Forest Service map of the draft proposal was even opened, revealing any details, the majority of those in attendance were supporting the draft proposal, and about 75 percent have not set foot on Trail 267, including the Forest Service deputy supervisor who presented the map. The one copy of the map was an outdated 1972 map, showing lower elevations. The old map visually downplayed rapid elevation changes, future erosion issues, destruction of critical wildlife habitat and maintenance required for public safety on some of the most difficult terrain in the Crazies.

I remember it differently, although most people were familiar with the proposal before it was presented. The deputy forest supervisor is a former trail builder and believes the trail is reasonable. The higher elevation has less critical habitat than the existing trail, which is in prime elk winter range, and this trail won't be open to motorized vehicles.

These folks, attempting to make your public lands and access armchair decisions for the future, were doing so not based on any facts, deeds, historical prescriptive easement details, nor Forest Service history and official position statements. Why were so many of the hand-selected attendees eager to abandon this historic trail? Do they not understand the repercussion this could create on future litigation pertaining to access? The courts have ruled favorably when presented with similar historical and deed documentation proving public access.

I'm not going to tell you who these "hand-selected attendees" were, but they were some of the most qualified advocates in the wildlife and access field. There is very little opposition to the concept of rerouting this trail, although the devil is in the details.

It was stated the proposed reroute would cost more than $500,000. This alone alarms FOCM. At the Aug. 10, 2017, public meeting, Custer Gallatin National Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson stated, due to the fire season, their budget was depleted, no money to fund trails and maintenance. Erickson's assertion was corroborated recently by Leanne Marten, Forest Service Region 1 forester, in her Feb. 9 Missoulian guest column.

This is not true. At the meeting I personally asked about cost and was told $20,000 per mile, or about $180,000 total. Then people from both federal, state, and private groups started talking about possible sources that could fund this. There is a lot of potential money out there for landowner willing projects like this.

If there is money for a reroute, why not utilize it to maintain and defend our existing trails? If there are no monies, why would anyone support a draft proposal knowing it won't be funded? If the Forest Service cannot maintain what we already have, it's obvious this major reroute will never see the light of day and is simply a smoke and mirrors attempt to look like they are finally addressing public access.

Misleading to say the least. Again, there is trail money available from a variety of private and public sources, but these sources aren't interested in funding lawsuits to defend the existing trails. In addition, it has been made abundantly clear this won't be another case where rights were given up before the access was finished. Several experienced people in attendance were adamant about that.

Thanks. I just wanted to straighten this out now that the actual proposal is out there.

rg

 

[BigHornRam]

It's been my experience that every group that calls themselves Friends of the (fill in the blank), are made up of completely unreasonable people. Appears to be the case here as well. Hope this effort works out.

 

[Fsmith]

The last Frontier. Only been a MT resident for 4 years now, first year I went to what all maps showed was a public access point where there was a historic school. Greeting was a sign saying need land owners permission. Landowner gave some BS that I would NEED the other two landowners on the road coming in to hunt. One of which runs an Outfit. you can guess where the conversation went from there. I have a tough time going back to the crazies due to lack of access and the thorn in the side landowners. Hopefully something gets worked out.