John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
No idea what you're try to tell me, Straight Arrow (if that is even your real name
). I've read Rob's post 1 many times.
East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
). I've read Rob's post 1 many times.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
Nothing, yet. It was just meant as a reminder the USFS believes these trails to be legal public rights-of-way and that the three organizations would not support a land swap that abandons Sweet Grass trail.
RobG
Well-known member
I take it this is going to be a another pointless nuisance sh*t show from you guys. Can I expect more misrepresentations and another lawsuit about NEPA to try to monkey wrench this thing like you did on the west?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I find this issue to be fascinating. Not only is there these weird potential easements across broad swaths of private land that may be open or may land you in jail (ok, just ticketed), but then there's the highly contentious debate between advocates and their legal council where they can't even agree on a path forward, to the point where I fear the public is losing because of it. I can't think of another example like it, it's dishearteningly fascinating. All I know, is that the private land interests are smiling.
RobG
Well-known member
Yeah, your previous meritless lawsuit showed that it is perfectly fine for the Forest Service work towards a solution without litigation. Furthermore, if you feel it is a winnable suit BHA can litigate and open it after the swap is completed so it is a loser to do it now. You also know that the Forest Service no longer claims they have a strong case there in spite of that letter, and that they do not have interest in litigating the contested road that leads there.
I'm really disappointed this nonsense is continuing in the face of your loss in court on an issue that was obviously meritless from the start.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Rob I get your points, we've certainly gone back and forth ourselves, but pump the brakes on your dialogue, you're being a bit of an ass. @John B. Sullivan III has kept it very professional. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean you need to attack him or his position. Literally every legal disagreement in the Country involves two sides that think they're right, and 50% are wrong.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
You are 100% right. It's a very complex issue. I feel like good negotiations must begin with both sides agreeing on basic facts and moving forward from there, but that seems impossible in the Crazies. We agree with the USFS that these trails are public. The landowners don't agree. The only option now is for the public to file a lawsuit which could cost $100K's or we accept the land swap which eliminates the trail and makes public access into Sweet Grass very difficult. Don't get me wrong, there are things to like about the swap but I think the public gives up way too much. I agree that the private land interests are smiling and I fear they will be the only ones smiling when it's all over.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Didn't you, not 30 minutes ago tell another poster, "No one likes you, go away."
Irrelevant
Well-known member
What have I always said, "there's three truths in life, Death, Taxes, and Hypocrisy."
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I also just told someone else that we have a high level of respect on here... so again, I can't keep my own story straight as it's so saturated with hypocrisy it's dissolving in my own hands.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
I thought about your comment a little more, specifically about if there are similar examples. It made me recall the story of the damn on the Yellowstone River, which may not be the perfect parallel with all the complexity of the Crazies but could work for a bigger picture analogy. As the effort was going forward to dam the Yellowstone, many conservationists were willing to compromise on the size of the dam on the Yellowstone, instead of fighting against the damn itself and the damage it would create. Can you imagine our state if Tony Schoonen or Jim Posewitz would have compromised on damming the Yellowstone? It is not a coincidence that Tony Schoonen was part of our plaintiff group or Jim Posewitz sent us a letter advocating for us to fight for these public trails.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
But hindsight is always 20/20. What if they'd have lost, and the dam had been built at max size. You'd have had plenty of conservationists pointed to out that the impacts could have been significantly smaller. The good guy doesn't always win. So it's a risk, do you compromise on some but not all, do you get some concessions when none is also an outcome? My community recently lost a conservation battle where we were offered a pretty sweet deal of 2 to 1 conservation easement for development, we elected to fight it (against my opinion) and lost. There are no conserved lands and the development is 3x in scope. Wildlife did not win, the public did not win.
As the song goes, you go to know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em...
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
My bad; I should have been more clear. Read "... Post 1, then all following posts."No idea what you're try to tell me, Straight Arrow (if that is even your real name
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
I've read them all several times and participated in the conversation along the way. Mind just telling me what you're trying to help me understand?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes. No sense in trying to understand, as obviously perspectives are too divergent.
Your time and next 22 HT posts would be better spent selling your perspective on this issue or stirring up some other old issue.
RobG
Well-known member
A fair point about my style, which is counterproductive, but seriously, NEPA for trails that have been in use for a couple years? Still claiming the FS believes the trail is "public" even though the FS is no longer pushing that view? (BTW, public is actually 100% the wrong term in the correct definition of the status even if it has a prescriptive easement, and John should know that by now.) Still citing an outdated FS opinion even though the relevance of it was shot down in court? I'm just calling it as it is.
Maybe John can tell us why BHA is appealing their lawsuit based on NEPA for new trails that have already been in use for several years. NEPA, seriously. How is that solution orientated?
RobG
Well-known member
EA just came out so we can now evaluate what is in it.
Maybe John can explain why he posted before anyone knew what was in it. That sort of timing it is a tactic by some in that group to set the narrative before the facts get established, but maybe that wasn't his purpose.
Link to EA ( I haven’t had time to review)
Maybe John can explain why he posted before anyone knew what was in it. That sort of timing it is a tactic by some in that group to set the narrative before the facts get established, but maybe that wasn't his purpose.
Link to EA ( I haven’t had time to review)
RobG
Well-known member
The Yellowstone dam is a horrible analogy. The only way it would match would be to base conditional support based on an unrelated matter. Furthermore, the fate of that unrelated matter would have nothing to do with the status of the dam. The Sweet Grass was purposely left unresolved so that if people want to resolve it, they can do so at any time.
I also see that the antis already trying to set the narrative that this is all about the Yellowstone club, instead of the merits of the swap, or even the actual role of the YC. In today's paper John claimed the swap was created by the Yellowstone Club. False. It was created by an independent group with involvement of other stakeholders, and I was personally invited to review it by John Tester's land guy, Erik Nylund. Erik told me the people who did it were straight shooters.
Everything I have seen indicates the Yellowstone Club's involvement is benign. In fact they have now included Smeller Lake. The real threat is if it doesn't go through as this would invite the YC and others to develop their inholdings. It would also likely get passed anyway by the alternate route of Congress, and you can bet it will be a lot worse if it does that.
I also see that the antis already trying to set the narrative that this is all about the Yellowstone club, instead of the merits of the swap, or even the actual role of the YC. In today's paper John claimed the swap was created by the Yellowstone Club. False. It was created by an independent group with involvement of other stakeholders, and I was personally invited to review it by John Tester's land guy, Erik Nylund. Erik told me the people who did it were straight shooters.
Everything I have seen indicates the Yellowstone Club's involvement is benign. In fact they have now included Smeller Lake. The real threat is if it doesn't go through as this would invite the YC and others to develop their inholdings. It would also likely get passed anyway by the alternate route of Congress, and you can bet it will be a lot worse if it does that.
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
I have no clue about your perspective because you've been cryptic...
John B. Sullivan III
Well-known member
Rob
I'm sorry you did not understand the analogy about the damn. I did make clear it was not a parallel analogy.
"The Sweet Grass was purposely left unresolved so that if people want to resolve it, they can do so at any time." Purposely unresolved is the problem. The USFS still considers that trail to be public. USFS Deputy Chief Chris French testified to congress that their position on that trail has not changed. Leaving the trail "purposely unresolved" means the trail will be permanently gone with this swap. In exchange, the public can hike 22 miles to get into upper Sweet Grass Canyon. Eradicating a legal trail and giving away the last public land in lower Sweet Grass Creek is not a good trade. The public land in Sweet Grass Canyon, which contains the trail and Sweet Grass Creek, will be given to the very landowners who bullied the public, placed illegal obstruction and were described as "hostile" by the USFS. There is no part of this proposal that protects the public's rights on that legal trail. The CMAP defends their actions and it's is gross. The USFS is proposing to reward their actions and that sets a very bad precedent.
"In today's paper John claimed the swap was created by the Yellowstone Club. False."
Here is an article from Brett French which states the "Western Land Group, hired by the Yellowstone
Club in 2018 to facilitate the exchange, submitted its land exchange proposal to the Forest Service in July 2020."
https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...cle_6e795f18-605b-11ed-b402-8b1727f25b8b.html
The Western Lands Group, hired by the YC, toured the state for years trying to sell the swap, long before the CMAP existed.
"The real threat is if it doesn't go through as this would invite the YC and others to develop their inholdings." That sounds like the YC is threatening the public. Have they told you this? It doesn't matter. You know they are already are developing a lodge on one of Leuschen's inholding (for those that don't know, Leuschen is the managing director of Riverstone Holdings which develops ski resorts and owns the Yellowstone Club). This swap will not prevent them from continuing that development.
Private development in the Crazy Mountains sparks anxiety for wilderness advocates
https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-new...tains-sparks-anxiety-for-wilderness-advocates
"It would also likely get passed anyway by the alternate route of Congress, and you can bet it will be a lot worse if it does that." Do you have any proof? Again, this sounds like the Yellowstone Club and their hired-guns threatening the public: Give us what we want or we will circumvent the public process and do whatever we want, and it will be a lot worse.
Similar threads
