East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

[RobG]

When it comes to the Sweet Grass trail access, we can't give up what we don't have. That sucks, but it is the reality. Yes, there is ample evidence that the trail is public. However, the landowner has ample evidence that it is not. When this happens the law is very clear: Access control belongs to the landowner and will remain that way unless it is litigated and a judge decides that the public's evidence is more compelling than the landowner's evidence.

The terms of this exchange are very clear on this topic: if someone wants to litigate they can do it now or after the exchange. Furthermore, the U.S. will not forfeit any interest in the trail like they did on the west side. Support by public representatives is conditional on that remaining.

 

[RobG]

In the first post I inadvertently posted a screenshot of S10 twice instead of separate screenshots of S8 and S10. I corrected that and added descriptions. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The terms of this exchange are very clear on this topic: if someone wants to litigate they can do it now or after the exchange. Furthermore, the U.S. will not forfeit any interest in the trail like they did on the west side. Support by public representatives is conditional on that remaining.

Thanks, Rob. That is important information for those with wavering support.

 

[Drake4]

I've hunted all over the east side and have killed a couple nice bulls there. I'm definitely not in favor of this exchange either.

 

[Irrelevant]

A Public-Access Lawsuit in Montana’s Crazy Mountains Claims Forest Service Is Catering to Private Landowners

The lawsuit that was filed against the U.S. Forest Service centers around four established hiking trails in Montana's Crazy Mountains.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Irrelevant]

I'm bumping this back up as I'm pretty surprised at the lack of engagement

 

[RobG]

I’m waiting until after the judgement.

 

[goodhunt]

I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?

 

[Irrelevant]

In Crazy Mountains lawsuit, judge recommends ruling against trail access advocates

A federal magistrate judge has recommended that the arguments of a coalition of trail access groups suing over Forest Service decisions in the Crazy Mountains be rejected.

billingsgazette.com

 

[RobG]

I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?

The chances of winning were so small that it wasn't a consideration in creating the exchange.

What bothers me is that BHA et al sued to stop the Porcupine trail from being rerouted because it was negotiated by collaborating with the landowner (with public input). If BHA had won then I don't see how they could support this exchange because it was crafted using the same tactics of the public and FS working with the landowners. Perhaps now that they lost they will change their position on this sort of collaboration???

BTW Neffa3, that article sucks. I need to drop Brett a note saying access advocates didn't suffer a blow any more than free gift advocates suffered a blow when they were informed Santa was fake.

 

[R.K.]

I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?

Has there been a ruling in the blocked access on the East Side of the Crazies?

 

[RobG]

Has there been a ruling in the landowners illegally blocking the public road and public access to public lands?

That wasn't part of the lawsuit. To open those roads up somebody would have to sue the people who are blocking the roads and prove to a court that the landowners are illegally blocking the roads. It's a pretty big deal to do that.

 

[rogerthat]

I have to say I have read that article on the ruling and this thread about 3 times and it all is about as clear as mud to me on the whole issue. West side/east side/new trails/roads. What a cluster

 

[rogerthat]

It would seem like to my simple mind that under Montana law all a landowner has to do is shut off access to anything that was historic access without a formal easement. If the forest service isn’t going to fight it, than the public is pretty much screwed.

 

[RobG]

It would seem like to my simple mind that under Montana law all a landowner has to do is shut off access to anything that was historic access without a formal easement. If the forest service isn’t going to fight it, than the public is pretty much screwed.

Not quite, the public still has the option to fight it, but they have to do it on their own dime.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

“Thank you for your inquiry concerning Trail #136 in the Crazy Mountains. The Forest Service is aware of this illegally-blocked access point… The southern portion of Trail 136 provides one of the few access points to east side of the Crazy Mountains. It is a historic trail that dates back a century or more. The Forest Service maintains that it holds unperfected prescriptive rights on this trail system as well as up Sweet Grass Creek to the North based on a history of maintenance with public funds and historic and administrative public use.” -- Custer-Gallatin Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson. This is still the official position of the US Forest Service. They have issued no documentation or notification to the public of an official change of position on these trails.

MWF, PLWA and Montana BHA provided the following letters of conditional support in regards the land swap, all three organizations require the US Forest Service preserve the current Sweet Grass Trail in any proposed land swap in order to gain support.

 

[Irrelevant]

“Thank you for your inquiry concerning Trail #136 in the Crazy Mountains. The Forest Service is aware of this illegally-blocked access point… The southern portion of Trail 136 provides one of the few access points to east side of the Crazy Mountains. It is a historic trail that dates back a century or more. The Forest Service maintains that it holds unperfected prescriptive rights on this trail system as well as up Sweet Grass Creek to the North based on a history of maintenance with public funds and historic and administrative public use.” -- Custer-Gallatin Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson. This is still the official position of the US Forest Service. They have issued no documentation or notification to the public of an official change of position on these trails.

MWF, PLWA and Montana BHA provided the following letters of conditional support in regards the land swap, all three organizations require the US Forest Service preserve the current Sweet Grass Trail in any proposed land swap in order to gain support.

John, What has changed since those letters were written almost three years ago?

 

[RobG]

John - Kind of weird you would repost these old letters before you even know what is in the proposal, which should be out soon. As you know, opening Sweet Grass trail is a non-starter and if it is really public like you say you can easily settle it in court, as the land swap proposal allows and the MWF letter explicitly requires in item 4.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

John - Kind of weird you would repost these old letters before you even know what is in the proposal, which should be out soon. As you know, opening Sweet Grass trail is a non-starter and if it is really public like you say you can easily settle it in court, as the land swap proposal allows and the MWF letter explicitly requires in item 4.

Kind of weird you are openly defending landowners who illegally block public rights-of-way.

Also weird you keep saying the proposed land swap allows the public to file a lawsuit, as if the Yellowstone Club is benevolently allowing the public to exercise their constitutional rights. That's not how this works.

The letters were direct responses to the Yellowstone Club's public proposal, so not weird at all.

 

[Straight Arrow]

John, back to post 1. Read and learn.