Crazy Mountain Trail Proposal Scoping!

[RobG]

This is a huge step forward in a standoff that has been going on for about a decade on the west side of the Crazy Mountains. The USFS has put a proposal out for comments. Information, including a mediocre map, is at the bottom of the article, or at the Forest Service site. I am trying to get a better map of the area.

The proposal is pretty fresh, so people are still looking and discussing it.

The exact location of the trail will have to be determined with boots on the ground, but the map is reasonably close. The drawing was put together by Chad Benson, the deputy forest supervisor on the Custer Gallatin Forest. He is part of the Crazy Mountain Working Group. He's also a Civil Engineer and a trail designer for the Forest Service.

I don't want to give the indication that we don't have a strong legal case to win access to this trail - in fact we have a strong one. But even when a strong case is there it can take 15 or more years to settle it and the cost is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Going to court will also ensure we will have to go to court on the east side where several other trails are currently being negotiated.

Please read the article and discuss. I'll try to get any questions answered and provide more information.

 

[6mm Remington]

At least if we keep strong on this issue and we get a positive outcome it might help in similar cases down the road. I know that over north of Roy Montana there is a road that has been used for a long time. This road went clear north down to the Missouri River. A guy purchased a piece of property there and this road for over a hundred years has gone through about a 300 yard corner of his property. He locked the gates on both sides and would not allow access other than to the outfitter who leased it. That piece of property had been my grandfathers and his parents before him!

Thanks for the update.

 

[RobG]

At least if we keep strong on this issue and we get a positive outcome it might help in similar cases down the road. I know that over north of Roy Montana there is a road that has been used for a long time. This road went clear north down to the Missouri River. A guy purchased a piece of property there and this road for over a hundred years has gone through about a 300 yard corner of his property. He locked the gates on both sides and would not allow access other than to the outfitter who leased it. That piece of property had been my grandfathers and his parents before him!

Thanks for the update.

Unfortunately, those are the kinds of cases you usually have to sue to win.

rg

 

[6mm Remington]

It will cost money to do this project for sure, but I bet there would be a huge support from hunters and groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation that would have volunteer's to help. Sign me up. I am going to volunteer on some Elk Foundation projects this spring and I also have volunteered to assist FWP in any outdoor type of projects. I think we could have an excellent turn out of folks who would love to help get something like this done. I'm in!

David

 

[RobG]

I forgot to include the maps. The first is the official, the second is a more detailed on I made using the Beartooth Publishing map from the crazies. I can't guarantee the trail location is exact, but it is in that general area.

I've seen some comments, like in the Chronicle, that the new trail is going through "critical wildlife habitat." That is very strange as the current trail goes through prime elk wintering habitat. We are moving it to less critical habitat. The same issue applies to trout. Again, this location is better for fish and wildlife.

 

[300stw]

This is a huge step forward in a standoff that has been going on for about a decade on the west side of the Crazy Mountains. The USFS has put a proposal out for comments. Information, including a mediocre map, is at the bottom of the article, or at the Forest Service site. I am trying to get a better map of the area.

The proposal is pretty fresh, so people are still looking and discussing it.

The exact location of the trail will have to be determined with boots on the ground, but the map is reasonably close. The drawing was put together by Chad Benson, the deputy forest supervisor on the Custer Gallatin Forest. He is part of the Crazy Mountain Working Group. He's also a Civil Engineer and a trail designer for the Forest Service.

I don't want to give the indication that we don't have a strong legal case to win access to this trail - in fact we have a strong one. But even when a strong case is there it can take 15 or more years to settle it and the cost is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Going to court will also ensure we will have to go to court on the east side where several other trails are currently being negotiated.

Please read the article and discuss. I'll try to get any questions answered and provide more information.

Many times its good to take a step back and look at the whole picture, when a car salesman tries extremely hard to sell you a car, sometimes things get missed,,,,,

i wish scare tactics would quit, continued saying it will be 15 20 years to sue and win,,,, hurt us in other places ect,,,,,to try and push this one trail,,,, if we get all trails in the crazies rerouted , opened, no court cases won,,,,what does the public actually win,
this isnt about an elk hunting spot, this is about recreationist's getting protection from access that should of allready be taken care of , if you trully want access go thru the little piece between sec 10 and 11, bushwack thru the country and recreate,,,,

getting these new trails in an iron clad box that have no exceptions, and can never be infringed upon by anyone at any time should be at the very front of any agreement, public info, ect,,,, the actual trail is no where as important as the legal aspect of the new trail,, that is i foremost want to see,

the hunters will be thick as flies as soon as the trail is finished,,,,,,

 

[mdunc8]

Unless the landowner acknowledges the public’s right to the old trail and pays for everything associated with the new one, I don’t see how I could support this.

 

[RobG]

this isnt about an elk hunting spot, this is about recreationist's getting protection from access that should of allready be taken care of , if you trully want access go thru the little piece between sec 10 and 11, bushwack thru the country and recreate,,,,

I'm not sure what what route you are talking about going between Sections 10 and 11, but you can't bushwack out of section 10 to the west, south, and east as it is surrounded by private. It isn't a corner between Section 10 and 14, it is a strip of private land.

Point taken on the other stuff, although they are very legitimate concerns, sorry about making them sound like scare tactics. Some of PLWA's lawsuits: Cherry Creek: 10 years; Montana Stream Access Law: 16 years; Boadle Road: 16 years. There are negotiations happening on the east side of the Crazies, and also the south side.

 

[cowboy]

Unless the landowner acknowledges the public’s right to the old trail and pays for everything associated with the new one, I don’t see how I could support this.

That is your right - but quite frankly the all or nothing approach has got us no where for the last umpteen years. I hope this goes through and sets a precedent for many more access routs into other public lands also.

 

[Sioux33]

I don't see how this is a bad thing. We're trading a trail across private for a new trail on previously unaccessible (without rock climbing gear) public. Isn't that the whole point? To increase public access to public lands?

If the landowner was blocking access to public land, that'd be a different story and wouldnt get a sniff, but he's blocking access to private sections that are off limits to the public. I'm all for that.

 

[300stw]

I'm not sure what what route you are talking about going between Sections 10 and 11, but you can't bushwack out of section 10 to the west, south, and east as it is surrounded by private. It isn't a corner between Section 10 and 14, it is a strip of private land.

Point taken on the other stuff, although they are very legitimate concerns, sorry about making them sound like scare tactics. Some of PLWA's lawsuits: Cherry Creek: 10 years; Montana Stream Access Law: 16 years; Boadle Road: 16 years. There are negotiations happening on the east side of the Crazies, and also the south side.

section 10 ties into little corner of section 2 i have spent some time there years ago investigating that route, to go around the private in 11

 

[300stw]

268 trail goes thru private also, better reroute that also, while we are rerouting, what is the legal status on 268,, legal recorded easement or ?

 

[RobG]

268 trail goes thru private also, better reroute that also, while we are rerouting, what is the legal status on 268,, legal recorded easement or ?

I'll find out.

 

[mdunc8]

...

 

[MTGomer]

That is your right - but quite frankly the all or nothing approach has got us no where for the last umpteen years. I hope this goes through and sets a precedent for many more access routs into other public lands also.

The precedent is exactly what I’m hoping it doesn’t set.

If you block public access to lands the public has a right to, it should be very expensive, with the possibility of more serious penalties like losing public land leases and even jail time depending on intent.

The precedent that people can block our access that we have a legal right to, then get US to pay for a reroute on their terms seems dangerous to me.

Compromise like Rob made in his personal court case I can respect and understand, but I believe a larger, bigger picture should be looked at on something like this.

I’m not necessarily opposed and hope whatever happens is as smooth as possible, but I certainly see the possibility of some wealthy individuals and their shrewd attorneys playing the long game quite well and sportsmen getting the shaft.
You know they’re looking 25 years out on this.
Are we only looking at the September 2019 elk rut?

 

[Irrelevant]

Everything Gomer said plus, the land owner should be the one paying for the entire reroute.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Everything Gomer said plus, the land owner should be the one paying for the entire reroute.

Although the righteous perspective is appreciated, you have to consider your goals and priorities. If you are primarily interested in public access to public lands to be gained most expeditiously and inexpensively, then the compromise proposal leads to success. If you are first interested in somehow punishing the landowner for overzealously perceiving his property rights to include closing the trail and value the access as secondary ... then making such demands of the landowner and potentially ending up in court is also a viable option.

I would prefer to open the access sooner and seek financial support for the new trail construction project. Not defending the actions of the landowner, but I can understand the perspective with respect to property rights. I'm sure that if any of us owned such land near the USFS boundary on the west side of the Crazies, we might see it differently.

 

[mdunc8]

Quit playing the access card. The trail will not provide access to public lands that aren't already accessible.

Does the existing trail provide access to that half section of state land? I'm guessing it doesn't since no one has mentioned it, but if it does, the proposal decreases access to public lands.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The trail will not provide access to public lands that aren't already accessible.

Then why the issue? Why all the time and effort at collaboration and the serious consideration of litigation for prescriptive easement?

But good question with respect to access to the State land in Section 16.

 

[mdunc8]

I have no idea why anyone is wasting any time or money on this other than the fact that someone is illegally posting a public trail