Crazy Mountains Public Access & FS Management Lawsuit Filed Today

[Zac-K]

Great article. Encompasses the history of how we got to where we are now in the Crazies and how the larger precedent these decisions have resonates further across all public lands. Worth keeping your eye on and raising your voice if you value that.

Also of value when discussing the Crazies is how in the spotlight and appearing to be at least more openly debated the gray area of legality it is.

Good time to not be eager to trade away what may be legal to access tomorrow.

 

[Zac-K]

Great article. Encompasses the history of how we got to where we are now in the Crazies and how the larger precedent these decisions have resonates further across all public lands. Worth keeping your eye on and raising your voice if you value that.

Also of value when discussing the Crazies is how in the spotlight and appearing to be at least more openly debated the gray area of legality it is.

Good time to not be eager to trade away what may be legal to access tomorrow.

Corner crossing I was referring to in my second paragraph

 

[RobG]

BHA et al appeal based on NEPA, rather than access. That NEPA is part of this suit in any way tells you all you need to know.

 

[RobG]

Here is their 2 page whole filing.

 

[S. Tripp]

Deadline to respond 4/3


https://p2a.co/dRWe9Gm?p2asource=so...GYf-DY8_ulYYl2F7S2rPkiHJJVTlJLT2zMoq04J8SuanM

I am a retired USDA FS Law Enforcement Officer who worked in the Yellowstone Ranger District of the Custer Gallatin National. I know this issue very well.

I originally submitted approximate 14 page response to this proposal. Then another 6 or so page response. Then a verbal response via teams. This is my fourth comment.

I apologize for my tone however it is how I feel about this bizarre trade.

*Like I stated ealier in my comments, I appreciate everyones work and the costs associated - but the agency is not fulfilling it's mission with this exchange. As a former employee I am in complete disbelief it went forward.

*Local view points from around Big Timber or Harlowton were not represented in this back alley fiasco at conception, why not?
The original players changed. Names of the group changed. Supporters became opponents.
Two landowners sent in letters of opposition. Hardly a fair representation when the rules are changed.

And the folks who originally supported this exchange based on the original plans did not understand the level of change after the first comment period. The rules of the game changed.

*They being the CGNF staff also failed to listen to the district employees. Not one single Yellowstone RD employee was in favor of this exchange in it's entirety. They did not listen to the district ranger or law enforcement officers, why? Why not sit down and listen to your own employees?

One of the Yellowstone RD retired employees, a well known and respected recreation employee and Sweet Grass Co ranching family made a comment that "folks will not use that new trail due to the elevation climb, distance and location."

Recreation money was put into wilderness trails throughout the years rather than trails in the Crazy's. Why did the forest walk away from the access in the Crazy's?

Had they did read my comments they would see that there is accesses into Sweet Grass Creek. Why is the agency turning their backs? Why didn't they sue for access?

*I have researched the documents and been told by the inholders that Sweet Grass Creek is accessible, that it is a public road.

Chuch Rein's wife's dad was a SG County Commissioner who allegedly destroyed records while a commissioner. However those records still exist in the Livingston Office and in the State Library amoung other places.

*As an LEO, I wrote Violation Notices to folks going off road, damaging the resources and for simple MVUM incidents. Now they want to, are going to, take the 1%'ers money and bust a 22 mile trail in the hills when that trail could have been less then a 7 mile reroute and would have avoided the current issues. Why wasn't that option put forward?

*One million dollars from those Big Sky Moonlight eletes -1%ers for a trail. Humm - who's pockets were lined too?

Are folks same folks going propose a ski lift on the south end of the Crazies too?

*Not to mention the Half Moon area doesn't support the additional use. Visitor experiences will be tarnish by the larger access area. Not that the new 21 mile trail will be used but that Blue Lake and other areas will have more use. They should have learned about social torrance in college while obtaining a forestry degree.

I guarantee you that the additional use will cause trees around Blue Lake and other areas to be vandalized and used as firewood. That is high elevation with limited opportunities. Plus there is a special order which states no fires. More visitation more violations. You build it they will come. Do we really need more use withing the Big Timber drainage? Having access in Sweet Grass Creek would spread out visitor use.

I can't even begin to get the recreation staff to add one additional camping space in the Main Boulder at Aspen CG but a large parking lot will be built at Halfmoon. That will add additional run off, pollutants, damage water quality, ruin visitor use experiences and create further aggregate the inholder.

*This will make those involved multi millionaires overnight by this asnine approval. Do you really believe that rock and ice acres above tree level are valued the same as the lush fields, timber land, abundant wildlife and running water? Ask yourself how is that value figure?

Just think of the trees, grass and shrubs and wildlife that will be disturbed or destroyed in order for the rich eletes to get their way. Throw money at it and some folks buy right into it hook line and sinker. Disturbing areas that are already accessible by hiking right up behind the dude ranch by the present East Side Trail. But no - trade that access away.

*This proposal is not the agency that Karol VanClive or their two daughters once proudly supported.
Van Clive's were not greedy like the other two siblings of the Barbara and Shelley Carroccia / Paige Dringman Family. Very interesting how the differences between one family split by marriage can be so hateful and gready.
And it is pathetic the Dringman's being a county planner and county attorney have influenced this exchange. Not to mention Rein's close friends in political powers.

*Frankly I am extremely disappointed, no appalled in Lauren Oswald and staff. Knowing Lauren, I believe she pushed this in order to further the "wilderness values" within the Crazy Mtns. The agency turned down the Crazies wilderness promises some 40 years ago. What are the agencies true intentions?

*The USFS is the reason this Exchange failed. And that failure is continuing in order to cover up past errors.
Recently retired Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson signed into the Carroccia's book in order to access the drainage. Even after the OIG, two district rangers and an LEO sent information out telling the employees not to sign in? That ruined the adverse action case now didn't it. This warning was in place well over a 15 year period by OIG. And ask yourself why the agency isn't acting on access issues. Seriously they look like fools!

*During the Teams Meeting I could tell what the outcome was going to be. I based that on their verbal and nonverbals. I feel that they and Erickson already had their minds made up. And to have one lousy alternative indicates how this was being crammed down the public's throats!

*This whole thing is a self fulfilling prophecy then they did not study this exchange and ask the hard questions. Which in my view they did not!

The FOIA provided to Paige Dringmann and the Langhus - Hailstone Ranch show several options instead of the single one presented. Not all of the items or paperwork covering the Sweet Grass / Carroccia FOIA was present? I am ask why not?

*i am not privileged to know what happens at your 30,000 feet level.
But at my boots on the ground level I will tell you that the US Tax payers, sportsman and locals who have traditionally used this area are getting screwed.

*The lack of fighting for prescriptive easements is mind blowing! Why in the last 6 years or so has the FS turned a blind eye? And they are doing the same thing on the Dakota Grasslands and on the B-D why? How that came about. Who made that decision and signed off on it. I am under the impression that thirty percent of the roads and trails will be given up and not represented based on that policy. Mr. Zinke, you have stated you are for access. Stand up and demand access!

 

[S. Tripp]

When I asked Oswald how these determinations were made I was refered to the travel plan. The MVUM plan is flawed in that it was designed and is an easy way to walk away from access issues.

*This trade does nothing to address access in the east side. It takes any opportunity to access Sweet Grass Creek away.

*This exchange does not provide for land development within the Sweet Grass Creek Drainage from future occurrence which they say is part of the reasoning for the trade. This protection needs to be placed in the Deed.

*No one trades land without keeping oil and mineral rights. Why is that not the case here. In fact I am sick of the government giving cheap leases when folks like my family have mineral rights and are passed up for exploration. Keystone - how about they drill in Musselshell Co and pay our mineral holders instead of Canada?

*The Ag. Sec., FS Chief, and Regional Forester recieved political pressure to have Alex Sienkiewicz blackballed and ostracized. He was and is slandered by all of them. And it continues today. That violates the ethics and integrity this agency is suppose to achieve and follow. Your opportunity to make thing right is now.

When is the FS going to stand up and represent it's employees publically for doing their appointed duties?

That action was nothing more than political power trip to achieve this result. The DR wasn't even asked or involved in this bastardized deal. In fact he was removed from it.

These are my opinions and facts from various entities.

You might want to know that there is an opened investigation into this exchange by the General Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General - USDA due to agency employees conduct and disproportionate value.

Please see the following for more broader information. You may have to copy and paste.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/hJcDQ4QFok2Bh5jH/?mibextid=oFDknk

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...EX9YO5Tvhhz1ROX3YxYGUJs4CtMUfUaG9hmHauG5l2Zgc

https://inthesetimes.com/article/cr...AKpUQjJT6laDGzhRckysY7VPgab7Aup6iomwbozuzpINg

https://www.plwa.org/crazy-mountain...auRkyOqkUJ5roT0BdwxHPYjdPZ26zMWTO0HAR3DjwELSQ

I appreciate your time and consideration. Questions please contact me.

Thank you.

Shawn Tripp
[email protected]
406-930-0515
PO Box 661
Big Timber, MT 59011

 

[Dave N]

Proofreading is your friend.

 

[S. Tripp]

Ya, written on a small smart phone so...

 

[Elky Welky]

Here is their 2 page whole filing.

View attachment 230674

This is just the notice of the appeal. It isn't the briefing that supports the appeal, but simply a placeholder that informs the court that the parties are appealing. The briefing comes later.

 

[RobG]

This is just the notice of the appeal. It isn't the briefing that supports the appeal, but simply a placeholder that informs the court that the parties are appealing. The briefing comes later.

I know that...

Thoughtful letter Shawn.

 

[RobG]

Let's hope this ill-conceived lawsuit is done.

Montana groups lose appeal over trail relocations on Crazy Mtns

Four environmental and sporting groups lost an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Monday following a failed federal challenge to the U.S. Forest Service’s plan to reroute once-public trails on Montana’s Crazy Mountains.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Elky Welky]

Let's hope this ill-conceived lawsuit is done.

Montana groups lose appeal over trail relocations on Crazy Mtns

Four environmental and sporting groups lost an appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Monday following a failed federal challenge to the U.S. Forest Service’s plan to reroute once-public trails on Montana’s Crazy Mountains.

missoulacurrent.com

It was the only remedy we had and the Forest Service failed us by not perfecting those easements. You're such a disappointment Rob.

 

[RobG]

It was the only remedy we had and the Forest Service failed us by not perfecting those easements. You're such a disappointment Rob.

Give me a break. It had no chance of winning. Zero, zippo. Every lawyer I talked to said as much and I came to that conclusion a year before when I looked at doing the same thing. Worse, BHA could have sued the landowners to prove any prescriptive easement existed if indeed they had the proof. How much did BHA spend on this suit?

 

[MTGomer]

I haven’t followed every detail… But if I’m understanding correctly, the appeal is filed on the grounds that NEPA, wasn’t followed? The appeal didn’t have to do with anccess and easement rights?

 

[Elky Welky]

Give me a break. It had no chance of winning. Zero, zippo. Every lawyer I talked to said as much and I came to that conclusion a year before when I looked at doing the same thing. Worse, BHA could have sued the landowners to prove any prescriptive easement existed if indeed they had the proof. How much did BHA spend on this suit?

I don't think any of us are going to give you much of a break anymore Rob, that ship sailed when you backed the Yellowstone club and have been tripping all over yourself giving them cover in that land exchange.

And unlike you, we put our money where our mouth is. The proof was in longstanding maps provided by the FS. So who should have been sued? Private landowners or the agency that already has imperfected easements? You're saying you'd rather us sue the private landowners and create unnecessary enemies? You, for one, have teamed up with them on the horrible land swap.

Maybe after you go to law school your legal accumen will mean something too. This was you in 2019, what changed?

I got my info from a group that isn’t afraid to sue the government over NEPA,

I, for one, am proud we stood up and weren't afraid to fight for public access.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You're such a disappointment Rob.

Elky, your explanation was helpful. The derogatory personal comment was not.

 

[Elky Welky]

Elky, your explanation was helpful. The derogatory personal comment was not.

They rarely are, and I try to reserve them for special circumstances. But I'm actually stating it more as a fact. He's a disappointment to many of us in this space as a result of his actions, and sometimes people deserve to be called out on it, personally.

 

[Straight Arrow]

He's a disappointment to many of us in this space as a result of his actions, and sometimes people deserve to be called out on it, personally.

It causes one to be reluctant to voice an opinion on this important access and public land issue in that it may disappoint others not in agreement.

'Big difference between disagreement and disappointment. Of all invested in many ways, RobG, moreso than most, is one who has paid for, suffered, endured, and earned the right to his opinion!
Disagree, be disappointed, or whatsoever ... but at least respect that.

 

[Elky Welky]

It causes one to be reluctant to voice an opinion on this important access and public land issue in that it may disappoint others not in agreement.

'Big difference between disagreement and disappointment. Of all invested in many ways, RobG, moreso than most, is one who has paid for, suffered, endured, and earned the right to his opinion!
Disagree, be disappointed, or whatsoever ... but at least respect that.

That's fair @Straight Arrow. And I will continue to disagree with him, and probably express my disappointment with how he's played both sides of this fiddle. But I am also not one to want to stifle spirited debate. I enjoy it, and haven't been afraid to throw down with anyone here (and I've also been wrong a fair number of times). So your point is taken.

 

[RobG]

Elky - I don't know the context of the NEPA quote, but I'm not afraid to use it when appropriate to protect a resource. On the other hand, as I said in the EAJA thread, I'm against monkey-wrench suits and I see no relevance of NEPA to access in this suit, nor do I believe the trail is a threat that wasn't addressed in this case.

As far Yellowstone Club, Jon Tester's staffer personally vouched for the YC consultants and encouraged me to meet with them. So give me a break.