RobG
Well-known member
Hi Folks,
There was an editorial in the Billings Gazette that deserves another side of the story so it is time for an update.
First, some background. The trail I got my ticket on, trail 135, is on the east side of the Crazy Mountains between Big Timber and Sweet Grass Creeks. It is, however, one of 5 trails that currently have landowner conflicts that have a chance of being improved. This whole issue blew up after my ticket and it is obvious there needs to be changes or landowners are going to start getting sued for blocking access.
We have a lot of historical evidence that these trails meet the criteria for prescriptive use. Land access sledgehammer PLWA is on this issue. As Bernie Lea of PLWA says, when they find historical documents proving access, the courts “have ruled in our favor almost every time.” Thus the landowners have come to the table. To their credit, the landowners formed a working group to try to find compromise. I wasn’t invited, but I don’t care. Erica Lighthiser of PCEC and Dale Sexton, who owns Timber Trails in Livingston are representing the access folks and I think they are doing an outstanding job.
Personally, I see a lot of potential for win/win solutions on several trails by collaboration. These are very old trails and mostly go through private land and only provide access to public land in a couple spots. I would never give them up without a fight, but there are multiple ways to improve access and also avoid going through so much private. And nobody has to waste money on lawyers. When only lawyers lose, you are doing it right.
The members of the working group don’t want their discussions to be public. Since the landowners are doing this on their own free will, and paying for it, I try to respect their wishes. I only know vague details anyway. Be assured, PLWA, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and MWF haven’t stopped doing research into the history of these trails. If necessary, they will be litigated.
A few weeks ago Dale Sexton from the working group wanted to float a landowner proposal by a few people in the access community. This involves trails 195 and 267 heading south from the Porcupine Forest Service cabin on the wst side of the Crazies. Originally it was just going to be the access crowd, but the landowner, Ned Zimmerman, asked if he could be there for questions, etc. He and his wife are quality people who have a different perspective, but want a solution.
There were about 25 people in the room including representatives from DNRC, USFS, Montana Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters, Anglers, Public Lands/Water Access Association (PLWA), RMEF, Friends of the Crazy Mountains (FOCM), EMWH (Kat Q.). In broad terms, Zimmerman’s proposal is to grant an easement so that the trail can be rerouted so it is almost entirely on public land. Nearly everyone agreed that this looked like a very promising proposal that is actually an improvement over the existing situations for both parties. That doesn’t mean they accepted it, only that it has a lot of potential. It also avoids a lawsuit, which often drag out for a decade and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars even with attorneys working at reduced rates. Also, any lawsuit would likely destroy the working group and make it harder to improve the situation on the east side.
FOCM and Kat (EMWH) don’t agree with the proposal. That’s fine, but they were outnumbered probably 10:1. Brad from FOCM wrote his concerns in the Gazette editorial I linked to in the opening sentence. I have asked both Brad and Kat to tell me why they oppose the working group in general and this specific proposal and I never get a direct answer. As best I can tell the reason is that we could win a lawsuit and re-open the original trail, and also the landowner is getting rewarded for blocking an access. These are certainly facts, but to quote a friend “Jesus, I'm sure we could win a court fight to regain a six mile trail that goes entirely through private land, but what the hell is the point? Our goal is to get to the national forest, and this proposal would do it quicker. ”
At the meeting I asked if I could make the proposal public and was told that it would be better if they could keep working on it without having the public questioning every detail before they are finalized. I completely understand respect that. The landowner, after all, doesn’t have to be proposing anything.
However, I can describe the proposal in general terms. On the map (from Kat’s website) Green is Forest Service land, pink is private land of interest. Trail 267 starts in section 10, but the landowner has posted it where it enters section 15. South of here is the contested area. The proposal would route the trail further east through a different part of his land and then continue south on public land crossing trail 195 and continuing until it meets with the existing trail 267 in section 2. The gradient is similar to the old trail, but in different locations.
Trail building is about $20,000/mile and it sounds like there are quite a bit of funding sources available outside of USFS. Many sections will be in rocky terrain and more expensive, but not prohibitively so and there is flexibility in trail location. I don’t know where Brad got the $500,000 cost that he put in his editorial - I didn't have that number in my notes.
I have some concerns about the proposal and how the easier access will affect elk hunting, but you have to weigh the options and the fact that the land is very hard to access now. Bear in mind, this is absolutely not a back room deal. It will have to go through NEPA and there will be plenty of time for public input. We can always litigate and get the old trail back, but I think this is an improvement and it won’t waste resources that might be needed on the east side.
Again, the details aren’t even finalized so the actual sketch will only generate questions about things that are still in the works. I trust Dale and Erica to represent us well in that process. I could be out causing problems for the landowners, but I support a collaborative solution to this problem 110%.
As the editorial says, FOCM is putting on a public meeting March 13[SUP]th[/SUP]. They might give more details than the landowners would like and raise all sorts of questions. That’s not how I operate, but they can do what they want. I encourage everyone to go and hear what FOCM has to say. Brad is well spoken, but listen to the other side and respect the fact that this is a work in progress that could lead to better solutions on multiple trails. I wish I could be there but that is in the middle of spring break and I’ll be somewhere warm with my family.
Finally, someone who disagrees with me decided to launch a smear campaign against me. Whatever. If you take the time to read closely, you can see the absurdity of the accusations, but some people have expressed concern. If you hear of anything that concerns you, email me at [email protected] and I can answer questions by email or phone. I am 100% comfortable with what I have done so far, but I am not going to have a public debate about twisted minutiae.
There was an editorial in the Billings Gazette that deserves another side of the story so it is time for an update.
First, some background. The trail I got my ticket on, trail 135, is on the east side of the Crazy Mountains between Big Timber and Sweet Grass Creeks. It is, however, one of 5 trails that currently have landowner conflicts that have a chance of being improved. This whole issue blew up after my ticket and it is obvious there needs to be changes or landowners are going to start getting sued for blocking access.
We have a lot of historical evidence that these trails meet the criteria for prescriptive use. Land access sledgehammer PLWA is on this issue. As Bernie Lea of PLWA says, when they find historical documents proving access, the courts “have ruled in our favor almost every time.” Thus the landowners have come to the table. To their credit, the landowners formed a working group to try to find compromise. I wasn’t invited, but I don’t care. Erica Lighthiser of PCEC and Dale Sexton, who owns Timber Trails in Livingston are representing the access folks and I think they are doing an outstanding job.
Personally, I see a lot of potential for win/win solutions on several trails by collaboration. These are very old trails and mostly go through private land and only provide access to public land in a couple spots. I would never give them up without a fight, but there are multiple ways to improve access and also avoid going through so much private. And nobody has to waste money on lawyers. When only lawyers lose, you are doing it right.
The members of the working group don’t want their discussions to be public. Since the landowners are doing this on their own free will, and paying for it, I try to respect their wishes. I only know vague details anyway. Be assured, PLWA, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and MWF haven’t stopped doing research into the history of these trails. If necessary, they will be litigated.
A few weeks ago Dale Sexton from the working group wanted to float a landowner proposal by a few people in the access community. This involves trails 195 and 267 heading south from the Porcupine Forest Service cabin on the wst side of the Crazies. Originally it was just going to be the access crowd, but the landowner, Ned Zimmerman, asked if he could be there for questions, etc. He and his wife are quality people who have a different perspective, but want a solution.
There were about 25 people in the room including representatives from DNRC, USFS, Montana Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters, Anglers, Public Lands/Water Access Association (PLWA), RMEF, Friends of the Crazy Mountains (FOCM), EMWH (Kat Q.). In broad terms, Zimmerman’s proposal is to grant an easement so that the trail can be rerouted so it is almost entirely on public land. Nearly everyone agreed that this looked like a very promising proposal that is actually an improvement over the existing situations for both parties. That doesn’t mean they accepted it, only that it has a lot of potential. It also avoids a lawsuit, which often drag out for a decade and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars even with attorneys working at reduced rates. Also, any lawsuit would likely destroy the working group and make it harder to improve the situation on the east side.
FOCM and Kat (EMWH) don’t agree with the proposal. That’s fine, but they were outnumbered probably 10:1. Brad from FOCM wrote his concerns in the Gazette editorial I linked to in the opening sentence. I have asked both Brad and Kat to tell me why they oppose the working group in general and this specific proposal and I never get a direct answer. As best I can tell the reason is that we could win a lawsuit and re-open the original trail, and also the landowner is getting rewarded for blocking an access. These are certainly facts, but to quote a friend “Jesus, I'm sure we could win a court fight to regain a six mile trail that goes entirely through private land, but what the hell is the point? Our goal is to get to the national forest, and this proposal would do it quicker. ”
At the meeting I asked if I could make the proposal public and was told that it would be better if they could keep working on it without having the public questioning every detail before they are finalized. I completely understand respect that. The landowner, after all, doesn’t have to be proposing anything.
However, I can describe the proposal in general terms. On the map (from Kat’s website) Green is Forest Service land, pink is private land of interest. Trail 267 starts in section 10, but the landowner has posted it where it enters section 15. South of here is the contested area. The proposal would route the trail further east through a different part of his land and then continue south on public land crossing trail 195 and continuing until it meets with the existing trail 267 in section 2. The gradient is similar to the old trail, but in different locations.
Trail building is about $20,000/mile and it sounds like there are quite a bit of funding sources available outside of USFS. Many sections will be in rocky terrain and more expensive, but not prohibitively so and there is flexibility in trail location. I don’t know where Brad got the $500,000 cost that he put in his editorial - I didn't have that number in my notes.
I have some concerns about the proposal and how the easier access will affect elk hunting, but you have to weigh the options and the fact that the land is very hard to access now. Bear in mind, this is absolutely not a back room deal. It will have to go through NEPA and there will be plenty of time for public input. We can always litigate and get the old trail back, but I think this is an improvement and it won’t waste resources that might be needed on the east side.
Again, the details aren’t even finalized so the actual sketch will only generate questions about things that are still in the works. I trust Dale and Erica to represent us well in that process. I could be out causing problems for the landowners, but I support a collaborative solution to this problem 110%.
As the editorial says, FOCM is putting on a public meeting March 13[SUP]th[/SUP]. They might give more details than the landowners would like and raise all sorts of questions. That’s not how I operate, but they can do what they want. I encourage everyone to go and hear what FOCM has to say. Brad is well spoken, but listen to the other side and respect the fact that this is a work in progress that could lead to better solutions on multiple trails. I wish I could be there but that is in the middle of spring break and I’ll be somewhere warm with my family.
Finally, someone who disagrees with me decided to launch a smear campaign against me. Whatever. If you take the time to read closely, you can see the absurdity of the accusations, but some people have expressed concern. If you hear of anything that concerns you, email me at [email protected] and I can answer questions by email or phone. I am 100% comfortable with what I have done so far, but I am not going to have a public debate about twisted minutiae.
Last edited:
.
