Crazy Mountain Public Access

[TBass]

Thanks for the update katqanna. I'm sure it's mere coincidence that the meeting open to the public was cancelled shortly after the public started finding out about it. I'm sure Stuker did intend to take public comment, being that Rein and Anderson are members of the public...

"Hey y'all, you're welcome to attend this meeting but we're not going to announce the date, time, or location." Pathetic. There might could be an inference here about scurrying when the light is turned on...

 

[What Map]

Kat, thanks for keeping up on this process and letting us know about meetings. I will try to make all public meetings.

 

[katqanna]

Thanks all

Tomorrow, the 18th, is FWP's scheduled season setting public meeting in Big Timber, 7 pm at the Carnegie Public Library (314 McLeod St, Big Timber, MT 59011)

 

[mdunc8]

I appreciate your effort, Kat. But what did you accomplish? Now they're just going to talk about it over the phone, email, or exchanges during "chance" encounters.

 

[katqanna]

I appreciate your effort, Kat. But what did you accomplish? Now they're just going to talk about it over the phone, email, or exchanges during "chance" encounters.

• I notified the public about a public meeting they were not aware of previously. BTW, I also called a landowner who was not invited in that list, who wanted to attend.
• I linked to an Open Government Guide and helped some to understand the open meeting process, which was applicable in this case.
• Through the newsletter and this forum post, gathered a number of the members of the public who wanted to atend the meeting on the 17th, that is greater involvement in the public process and this management of our public resources there includes public process.

Rein et all are going to have their discussions regardless. I am not the one who cancelled the meeting. For them to cancel the meeting, instead of continuing it and allowing the other members of the public to attend and comment, as some of us planned, may, I repeat may, not does, indicate the motivations involved. Or they could just decide to roll the conversations they were planning on having on the 17th into the FWP season setting meeting on the 18th, which begs the question, why didn't anyone do that in the first place?

By alerting the public to the meeting, then its cancellation, it puts Rein et all on notice that we are watching and engaging, as well as the agencies involved; that the same status quo that has been going on for so long is not going to cut the mustard any longer, these access issues are contributory to the over objective elk count there. This is an overdue discussion that is going to take place, whether some like it or not.

You may not view any of that as an accomplishment, but anytime we get more of the public engaged, whether it is attending public meetings, the legislature, rallies or submitting public comments, I view that as an accomplishment.

 

[mdunc8]

I would have kept the meeting to myself with the exception of a few folks with an interest in what might have been discussed as well as someone from a local paper and/or tv station. I would have shown up unannounced and made my way into the meeting. Assuming they didn't catch wind of your plan, you would have accomplished everything you did plus a lot more.

 

[BuzzH]

I would have kept the meeting to myself with the exception of a few folks with an interest in what might have been discussed as well as someone from a local paper and/or tv station. I would have shown up unannounced and made my way into the meeting. Assuming they didn't catch wind of your plan, you would have accomplished everything you did plus a lot more.

Bullshit...if its an open meeting, the public has the right to be there.

Frankly, it should be THEIR job to inform the public and put out a public notice about the meetings.

I'm so fed up with the secrecy and behind closed door meetings that decide our fate as hunters, anglers, and outdoor recreationists. They all squawk about how they don't get any public involvement, then when they do, they cancel the meeting? What a joke.

IME, if there's nothing to hide, then allow the public to be there. Also IME, when meetings are suddenly changed, people don't show up at pre-arranged meetings, etc...they're just trying to make it all go away and don't want to be responsible and accountable.

Sad times we live in...

 

[Labman]

What title do you need to hold in order to wave a wand and organize your own meeting with a FWP commissioner? Would the CEO of the RMEF, pres of Friends of the Crazy Mountains, and the president of PLWA be able to make a call and have a meeting appear out of nowhere? Or is it just groups that hate the public that get to do that? If those are the cridentials required to make it happen they should give it a go and see what happens.

 

[Halleywood]

Did anything interesting come out at the meeting last night? I'm in ND so I am out of range.

 

[RobG]

Another good article about access in Montana. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/21/public-land-battle-private-landowners-montana

 

[Straight Arrow]

Discussion at the January Montana Environmental Quality Council (QEC) included a concern about public access in general and east side of Crazy Mountains access in particular. At their next session, March 21-22, the council agreed to host a discussion with some knowledgeable "guests". Council Public Member John Brenden of Scobey (formerly chair of the Senate Fish & Game committee and openly critical of FWP, wildlife, and hunters) referred to an article by Terry Anderson which Brenden thought is "spot-on"!? He requested that Terry Anderson be invited to address the issue with the QEC. Sen Pomnichowski remarked that she does not wish to see Anderson and others merely engage in an ideological debate, but wants helpful input and information. She suggested that ample time be allotted to that segment of the March meeting, realizing that there may be many stakeholders in attendance. (She didn't mention Rob G. by name, but she may have been thinking of him.) The EQC is comprised of the likes of Brenden, Rep Kerry White, and others with whom most Hunttalkers likely would disagree regarding public access, private vs public property rights, wildlife management, hunting issues and a variety of other "environmental quality" issues. It would be good to put that meeting on your radar and try to monitor, if not actually be in attendance.

 

[katqanna]

I watched it before and had spoken with J.P. , then spoke with some others about attending, submitting public comments at the next EQC meeting. I will be bringing documentation for the EQC members.

My livingroom has been overrun by thousands of pages of FOIA documents, GLO maps and documents, Railroad grants, county records, MDT records (just got out of their office on Friday, I love Helena), Historical Society records, etc.

It will be interesting, if not amusing, to see what John Brendan's advocate for privatization, PERC's Terry Anderson, will actually bring to the table besides his bought and paid for privatization ideology.

 

[RobG]

Sen. Pomnichowski continues to impress me. She deserves more credit than she gets.

 

[TBass]

Discussion at the January Montana Environmental Quality Council (QEC) included a concern about public access in general and east side of Crazy Mountains access in particular. At their next session, March 21-22, the council agreed to host a discussion with some knowledgeable "guests". Council Public Member John Brenden of Scobey (formerly chair of the Senate Fish & Game committee and openly critical of FWP, wildlife, and hunters) referred to an article by Terry Anderson which Brenden thought is "spot-on"!? He requested that Terry Anderson be invited to address the issue with the QEC. Sen Pomnichowski remarked that she does not wish to see Anderson and others merely engage in an ideological debate, but wants helpful input and information. She suggested that ample time be allotted to that segment of the March meeting, realizing that there may be many stakeholders in attendance. (She didn't mention Rob G. by name, but she may have been thinking of him.) The EQC is comprised of the likes of Brenden, Rep Kerry White, and others with whom most Hunttalkers likely would disagree regarding public access, private vs public property rights, wildlife management, hunting issues and a variety of other "environmental quality" issues. It would be good to put that meeting on your radar and try to monitor, if not actually be in attendance.

I'm surprised Brenden didn't suggest inviting his brother-in-law Chuck Rein as one of those "knowledgeable guests."

 

[Sytes]

Thanks for the review, Straight Arrow. Seems MT is the contender for UT with respect to public land ideals on the national stage. Glad there is a popular public land theme in MT.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sen. Pomnichowski continues to impress me. She deserves more credit than she gets.

Agree; I have long held her in high regard. She is a sharp, well-informed, balanced-thinking legislator ... of which I wish we had more.

It is good that Kat is in touch with her.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Glad there is a popular public land theme in MT.

Yes and I'm glad it is a strong theme, especially when you consider the leadership and political power in the Montana legislature, much of which is not pro-public lands, pro-public land access, or pro-wildlife. The political opposition to public lands, public wildlife, and even hunting is reflected by the composition of a number of key legislative committees. It is often disheartening to view the meetings of the EQC, the Senate Fish & Game, and the House Fish & Game committees ... and the pursuant legislative proposals coming from those committees. My perspective is that of a state legislature which strongly and adversely misrepresents the overall attitudes of Montanans with regard to public lands, wildlife, and hunting.

 

[RobG]

I'm surprised Brenden didn't suggest inviting his brother-in-law Chuck Rein as one of those "knowledgeable guests."

Are you joking about Chuck being his brother in law or is that for real? I'm sure he will be invited as he is a stakeholder.

 

[TBass]

Read third column in the From Melville section. http://big.stparchive.com/Archive/BIG/BIG06261985P09.php

I can't get this to link directly to the news blurb, but if you go to the linked page and search for Brenden, you'll find it. http://www.kltz.com/mobile/newssearch.php?select=2011-09-01

 

[katqanna]

Crazy Mountain Survey Page At BHA

Posting from my newsletter:

There is a public access battle raging in the Crazy Mountains and we need to hear from you!

Historical and current public user information is very important to protect, and at times, fight to legalize historical prescriptive access to our public lands.

EMWH has been engaged in gathering on the ground research, documentation, and public advocacy involving the Crazy Mountains; working with other partners that are also fighting and share the public access vision for the Crazies; like Public Lands/Water Access Association, MT Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and a local group - Friends of the Crazy Mountains. In the late Fall, we decided to gather current and historical user data.

Another way Montana Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is contributing to this fight is by hosting an in depth survey page for the public to fill out and submit documentation, to aid in our public access battle for the Crazy Mountains.

Have you or your family ever ventured into the Crazy Mountains? Use the form link below to let us know which trail(s) you used, what access point(s), when, and why. This information will help us prove certain trail(s) / road(s) have been used historically and regularly, meeting the criteria for public prescriptive easements, and that the public should continue to be granted safe, secure, and legal public access.

This information will remain secure and private unless we have your clear consent.


Click for the BHA Crazy Mountain Survey page