Garfield County sues High Lonesome Ranch over road access
- Thread starter Matty B
- Start date
Shangobango
Well-known member
To use the younger generations vernacular, those ranch owners sure come off as being little bitches.
I prefer selfish little bitches that threw a bunch of money at a slimy f****** bastard to make an provably false legal argument in order for them to subvert the legal system and see some financial gain. But as long as they get a sympathetic judge and "friendly" local law enforcement, they can do it with impunity.
Last edited:
marksjeep
Well-known member
Gate has been unlocked, again.
https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_ab9caff0-0cfe-11ec-9cfe-7b65db64d402.html
https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/wes...cle_ab9caff0-0cfe-11ec-9cfe-7b65db64d402.html
marksjeep
Well-known member
Old thread. But the saga continues.
https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/ran...cle_0e3deb66-4848-11ee-b272-b317c9fcf189.html
https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/ran...cle_0e3deb66-4848-11ee-b272-b317c9fcf189.html
Westelker
Well-known member
You have got to be kidding me! This saga re the locked gate still ongoing. I have lived in Palisade and have hunted all over that country....most of it is or was BLM land. Ranchers very often on the western slope install locks and post signs on gates on public roads....not all ranchers, but a lot. Growing up in the 50s and 60s my dad would shoot off the lock and continue driving on public domain.
What am I missing?
WyoDoug
Well-known member
There was someone by Meeker doing the same thing in the 80s. County sued the rancher and he eventually got called on contempt of court. Next thing I know road is wide open with signs stay on road until you get to the BLM land.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,556
Maybe we need 4 hunters from Missouri to show us Coloradans how to access our land. Worked in WY.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Seems like you can find some yahoo on an ATV to destroy a legitimate gate without even trying. Where is that dude, now!?
Westelker
Well-known member
Do you have any more info? Thanks for the update,
Based on your description ("won and it's on appeal") think that's slightly (in light of the age of this case) old news. What Meateater episode was it? I'm going through and watching them all again.
Here's the result of the appeal that the County won; dated March 6, 2023:
High Lonesome Ranch v. Board of County Commissioner, et al., No. 21-1020 (10th Cir. 2023)
For years, the High Lonesome Ranch restricted access to two roads by locking a gate. But in 2015, during a county meeting, the Garfield County Commission directed the Ranch to remove the locked gate after concluding that the two disputed roads were subject to public rights-of-way. The Ranch...
law.justia.com
@marksjeep posted the latest development that I could find (Post #106 above), but there should be another development any day now based on the content of his shared article.The High Lonesome Ranch doesn't allow hunting anymore on their private lands because of a fire in 2022. Curiously, I wonder if HLR in their noble claim to preserve the land for wildlife still allows their cattle to graze the burn area?
I mixed up issues. My bad.Based on your description ("won and it's on appeal") think that's slightly (in light of the age of this case) old news. What Meateater episode was it? I'm going through and watching them all again.
Here's the result of the appeal that the County won; dated March 6, 2023:
High Lonesome Ranch v. Board of County Commissioner, et al., No. 21-1020 (10th Cir. 2023)
For years, the High Lonesome Ranch restricted access to two roads by locking a gate. But in 2015, during a county meeting, the Garfield County Commission directed the Ranch to remove the locked gate after concluding that the two disputed roads were subject to public rights-of-way. The Ranch...@marksjeep posted the latest development that I could find (Post #106 above), but there should be another development any day now based on the content of his shared article.
The High Lonesome Ranch doesn't allow hunting anymore on their private lands because of a fire in 2022. Curiously, I wonder if HLR in their noble claim to preserve the land for wildlife still allows their cattle to graze the burn area?
That was Cornercrossing. That was the ME episode a couple weeks ago.
The fire was in 2020 but regardless I don’t understand there logic. The fire has produced some awesome habitat and they have missed out on some incredible hunting.Based on your description ("won and it's on appeal") think that's slightly (in light of the age of this case) old news. What Meateater episode was it? I'm going through and watching them all again.
Here's the result of the appeal that the County won; dated March 6, 2023:
High Lonesome Ranch v. Board of County Commissioner, et al., No. 21-1020 (10th Cir. 2023)
For years, the High Lonesome Ranch restricted access to two roads by locking a gate. But in 2015, during a county meeting, the Garfield County Commission directed the Ranch to remove the locked gate after concluding that the two disputed roads were subject to public rights-of-way. The Ranch...@marksjeep posted the latest development that I could find (Post #106 above), but there should be another development any day now based on the content of his shared article.
The High Lonesome Ranch doesn't allow hunting anymore on their private lands because of a fire in 2022. Curiously, I wonder if HLR in their noble claim to preserve the land for wildlife still allows their cattle to graze the burn area?
Khunter
Well-known member
Hopefully the final chapter on this successful lawsuit by my employer to preserve public access here in my home county.
PRESS RELEASE
4.7.25
County preserves public access near De Beque
Federal court rules County Road 200 is public, maintaining access to BLM lands
GARFIELD COUNTY, CO - Garfield County has successfully defended itself in a federal lawsuit brought by High Lonesome Ranch (HLR) in a resounding victory for local government and public access. The legal battle, which centered around Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477), resulted in the opening of more than 50,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the public, reaffirming the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of local governments in protecting public access.
At the heart of this case was the fundamental question of who controls access to public lands. In 2016, Garfield County asked HLR to unlock a private gate that crossed County Road 200. While the parties were negotiating this issue, HLR filed suit against the county in state court challenging the county’s determination that County Road 200 was public.
The lawsuit has concluded after nine years of litigation; the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Colorado originally found that the entire North Dry Fork west of the Y and Middle Dry Fork through the private land was public under RS 2477. It was then appealed by HLR to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which reversed a portion of the district court judge’s order and remanded it back, after which the district court concluded that North Dry Fork west of the Y and Middle Dry Fork through the private land are public under RS 2477.
After the BLM was required to be added to the lawsuit, the case was removed to federal court. HLR wanted to restrict access to vast swaths of federally managed lands by challenging Garfield County’s claim; however, RS 2477 grants counties and states rights-of-way over certain historic roads established before 1976. By successfully defending this claim, Garfield County ensured that outdoor enthusiasts, sportsmen and women, and local residents retained their right to access these lands for recreation, hunting, and other lawful uses.
The reopening of these public lands is more than a legal victory — it will also have a significant economic and recreational impact for Garfield County. Outdoor recreation is a cornerstone of Colorado’s economy, generating billions in revenue annually. With additional public land now accessible, Garfield County stands to benefit from increased tourism, business opportunities for local outfitters, and a stronger draw for hunters, hikers, and outdoor enthusiasts.
This case highlights the essential role that county governments play in protecting public interests. Garfield County’s leadership in this legal fight demonstrates a commitment to upholding the public’s right to access federal lands and resisting encroachment by private interests. The successful defense under RS 2477 reaffirms the county’s authority in managing and maintaining historic routes that provide critical access to these lands.
This decision is a crucial step in preserving the Western tradition of open lands and underscores the importance of local governments standing firm against efforts to close off lands that belong to all Americans. Going forward, this case sets a precedent for other counties facing similar legal battles over public land access. It is a testament to what can be achieved when local governments stand up for their communities and work to ensure that public lands remain open and accessible for future generations.
The outcome of the High Lonesome Ranch lawsuit is a significant victory for Garfield County, its residents, and all who cherish access to public lands. By successfully defending its RS 2477 claims, the county has preserved a crucial public resource, strengthened its local economy, and reaffirmed the public’s right to enjoy and steward the lands that belong to all. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the need for continued vigilance in protecting public lands from privatization and maintaining them for the benefit of all.
PRESS RELEASE
4.7.25
County preserves public access near De Beque
Federal court rules County Road 200 is public, maintaining access to BLM lands
GARFIELD COUNTY, CO - Garfield County has successfully defended itself in a federal lawsuit brought by High Lonesome Ranch (HLR) in a resounding victory for local government and public access. The legal battle, which centered around Revised Statute 2477 (RS 2477), resulted in the opening of more than 50,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the public, reaffirming the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of local governments in protecting public access.
At the heart of this case was the fundamental question of who controls access to public lands. In 2016, Garfield County asked HLR to unlock a private gate that crossed County Road 200. While the parties were negotiating this issue, HLR filed suit against the county in state court challenging the county’s determination that County Road 200 was public.
The lawsuit has concluded after nine years of litigation; the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Colorado originally found that the entire North Dry Fork west of the Y and Middle Dry Fork through the private land was public under RS 2477. It was then appealed by HLR to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which reversed a portion of the district court judge’s order and remanded it back, after which the district court concluded that North Dry Fork west of the Y and Middle Dry Fork through the private land are public under RS 2477.
After the BLM was required to be added to the lawsuit, the case was removed to federal court. HLR wanted to restrict access to vast swaths of federally managed lands by challenging Garfield County’s claim; however, RS 2477 grants counties and states rights-of-way over certain historic roads established before 1976. By successfully defending this claim, Garfield County ensured that outdoor enthusiasts, sportsmen and women, and local residents retained their right to access these lands for recreation, hunting, and other lawful uses.
The reopening of these public lands is more than a legal victory — it will also have a significant economic and recreational impact for Garfield County. Outdoor recreation is a cornerstone of Colorado’s economy, generating billions in revenue annually. With additional public land now accessible, Garfield County stands to benefit from increased tourism, business opportunities for local outfitters, and a stronger draw for hunters, hikers, and outdoor enthusiasts.
This case highlights the essential role that county governments play in protecting public interests. Garfield County’s leadership in this legal fight demonstrates a commitment to upholding the public’s right to access federal lands and resisting encroachment by private interests. The successful defense under RS 2477 reaffirms the county’s authority in managing and maintaining historic routes that provide critical access to these lands.
This decision is a crucial step in preserving the Western tradition of open lands and underscores the importance of local governments standing firm against efforts to close off lands that belong to all Americans. Going forward, this case sets a precedent for other counties facing similar legal battles over public land access. It is a testament to what can be achieved when local governments stand up for their communities and work to ensure that public lands remain open and accessible for future generations.
The outcome of the High Lonesome Ranch lawsuit is a significant victory for Garfield County, its residents, and all who cherish access to public lands. By successfully defending its RS 2477 claims, the county has preserved a crucial public resource, strengthened its local economy, and reaffirmed the public’s right to enjoy and steward the lands that belong to all. This case serves as a powerful reminder of the need for continued vigilance in protecting public lands from privatization and maintaining them for the benefit of all.
WildWill
Well-known member
9 years! The wheels of justice truly turns slow.
Last edited:
reallyoldman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 193
We all need to give Garfield Commissioner John Martin a huge thank you. He is an unusual polition and great individual.
Question- will the ranch be paying 9 years of back fees for outfitter leasing?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,669
Exactly my thoughts. If the reverse was true - better believe the public would be paying back. Probably with interest.
