teej89
Well-known member
fairly late to the game but donated Rob! Good luck!
-T.J.
-T.J.
My East Crazies Trespassing Trial
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
RobG
Well-known member
Thanks guys!
Kat didn't label the pics.
First pic, the guy in the orange is me. Not many people can pull off wearing the orange grizzly bear hat like I did. The scruffy guy is Marshall Swearingen who has wrote a couple articles on Crazy Mountain Access in High Country News and Montana Quarterly.
Second pic: Big Fin
Third pic: Brad Wilson (Sitting - Friends of the Crazy Mountains) Kurt Alt (General multipurpose legend, forget who was representing that night), Hayes Goosey (Park County Rod/gun club), Ray Pearson (PLWA), Lou Goosey? (PLWA), John Gibson (PLWA).
Last pic: Jesse Bussard (Region 3 BHA hard worker and organizer), Jeff Lukas, Montana Chapter Organizer.
Kat didn't label the pics.
First pic, the guy in the orange is me. Not many people can pull off wearing the orange grizzly bear hat like I did. The scruffy guy is Marshall Swearingen who has wrote a couple articles on Crazy Mountain Access in High Country News and Montana Quarterly.
Second pic: Big Fin
Third pic: Brad Wilson (Sitting - Friends of the Crazy Mountains) Kurt Alt (General multipurpose legend, forget who was representing that night), Hayes Goosey (Park County Rod/gun club), Ray Pearson (PLWA), Lou Goosey? (PLWA), John Gibson (PLWA).
Last pic: Jesse Bussard (Region 3 BHA hard worker and organizer), Jeff Lukas, Montana Chapter Organizer.
katqanna
Well-known member
Sorry for not labeling, burning candles at so many ends right now I feel like one of spinning pinwheels on fire.
And, because a number of your other pics (where you didn't have a glass in front of your mouth) didn't come out properly, I had to spend time with a tutorial for the pro version of the camera to get all the preferences set up, test runs of all the options (like the virtual shot, that could be awesome with a bison) and make sure the camera didn't save future pictures to bloody jpgs. What is the point of hi res images if they are going to muck them up with jpg???
Thanks Rob, oh, and love the hat.
And, because a number of your other pics (where you didn't have a glass in front of your mouth) didn't come out properly, I had to spend time with a tutorial for the pro version of the camera to get all the preferences set up, test runs of all the options (like the virtual shot, that could be awesome with a bison) and make sure the camera didn't save future pictures to bloody jpgs. What is the point of hi res images if they are going to muck them up with jpg???
Thanks Rob, oh, and love the hat.
Don K
Active member
Ok Rob, its the 16th did you get to trial today? Hoping things went your way!!
katqanna
Well-known member
I had a great time there, met some guys (residents of that area) that created the Friends of the Crazy Mountains to fight back against the access being cut off by specific landowners and purchased the court records of Senator Roger Webb that received those 4 FWP citations in Nov. 2015. There may be something we can actually do on one of these that appears to have fallen through the cracks. 
RobG
Well-known member
Much ado about nothing. No trial - it was just an omnibus hearing. The only thing that happened was we set up a trial date of June 8th, and that will probably get pushed out.
teamhoyt
Well-known member
I'm In! If we get a big group they will have one hell of a court hearing and a sheriff with some serious hand cramps.
teamhoyt
Well-known member
I'm In! If we get a big group they will have one hell of a court hearing and a sheriff with some serious hand cramps.
Hannibal
New member
Here's a possible solution which may satisfy both sides in this conflict, the landowners, the local prosecutor, the Forest Service, sportsmen (residents as well as nonresidents), the public in general and of course you. Why not purchase an easement through the property for the public with a fund established by contributions from members of this website? I believe somewhere in your thread you indicated that the landowner permits access for a small fee. This may indicate a willingness on his part to allow the public or sportsmen's groups to purchase a deeded easement for an amount which might be agreeable to both him and our membership. With HuntTalk's large membership it seems reasonable to assume the members would be willing to make contributions which would give HuntTalk the funding to make the purchase. If the members and the landowner can reach an agreement the public will have greater access to public lands and the local prosecutor would obviously be more than willing to drop the criminal complaint. Your lawyer may be able to assist us in the negotiations and purchase. And of course, Big Fin and his associates would need to give their approval and support to our initiative. Just a thought, which might lead to a win/win solution for everyone.
homerj
New member
I would agree with your sentiments if this were a new trail, or an attempt to cut a new trail. But in this case the USFS believes this is a prescriptive easement that traditionally has been used to access public land. The USFS has maintained the trail. In this case going back to at least 1925 according to previous posters. The public should not have to buy access rights to it's land. Easements through private property for public travelways are pretty typical. For instance, if someone owns the property on both sides of a road they typically don't own the road and they can't prohibit access to the road. The same principal applies to trails with a long history of public use. Additionally, what if the landowner doesn't play ball? Does that mean that a stubborn private land owner gets to keep people off public land? Or what if this landowner does play ball, but the next will not? Should the public lose the use of a trail that's been in use for nearly 100 years because some ornery cuss bought the property? That doesn't wash in my opinion. The public has been using this trail for a substantial period of time. That traditional use deserves be respected on it's own merit and oughtn't need to be bought.
We're going through similar issues in Colorado where people are closing trails, USFS jeep trails, and in one case that I know of personally, a county road. Keep fighting the good fight Rob.
Last edited:
From my limited experience with prescriptive easements, I believe that offering anything like that would be the last thing you would want to do.
Any action like that will be seen in the eyes of the court as the public acknowledging that they must ask and therefore do not have a right to cross without permission.
On the flip side to that, if you're a land owner and you allow public access, you should always require permission. If say, you own property on the river and you let anybody and everybody cross your land to launch their boat anytime they please, for decades, there may be a strong case for a prescriptive easement and if you ever decide to stop allowing access, you may be out of luck.
Any action like that will be seen in the eyes of the court as the public acknowledging that they must ask and therefore do not have a right to cross without permission.
On the flip side to that, if you're a land owner and you allow public access, you should always require permission. If say, you own property on the river and you let anybody and everybody cross your land to launch their boat anytime they please, for decades, there may be a strong case for a prescriptive easement and if you ever decide to stop allowing access, you may be out of luck.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Agreed, and a future consequence could be the "purchased" permission being terminated, at the sole discretion of the landowner, when ever he wishes.
Not an attorney, but with limited however long-studied knowledge of prescriptive easements, it seems Rob and the public he represents have an established prescriptive easement to public land which needs to be established by a declaratory judgement of the court. Then it's done and the public access is legally established long term. If future citations are to be issued, they would be issued to whomever tries to block public access to public lands.
Once permission is paid for and/or written permission is granted, then the access ownership is clearly in the hands of the party granting permission.
Hannibal
New member
Yes, I understand your point of view as well as that of homerj. However, the matter of prescriptive easement is disputed and that legal dispute may be in litigation for many years prohibiting the public , in the interim, from access to public lands. The disputed claim of prescriptive easement or what may eventually become a legally established prescriptive easement could be exchanged for a deeded easement. A deeded easement could be purchased which becomes a permanent part of the property and will remain in effect in perpetuity even if ownership of the property changes. In any case it's good to have your input as well as homerj's.
VAspeedgoat
Well-known member
Coming in late on the conversation, but here in Va you can not legally landlock a parcel. Meaning I can buy a parcel with no deeded right of way and force, through legal means if necesary, the owners of adjacent properties to sell a right of way. I have to pay and they have to yield. Its just a matter of how much money the lawyers get to settle the dispute. I can't beleive its any different in this case or elsewhere in the west.
Maybe if we give all the land to the states it will get better........sarcasm
Maybe if we give all the land to the states it will get better........sarcasm
Not sure if that's the case in IN or not. In a way I hope it isn't as there's a landlocked 40 that abuts mine that I'd like to get a deal on...
My northern neighbor is our Uncle Sam. I do not have to allow the public through my place to get to his.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Unfortunately that is not the law in Montana. In the case of private parcels, it's "buyer beware". In the case of public lands, that is why the public access to public lands issue continues to be such a huge problem. It is also the reason why access issues such as that faced by Rob and the public he represents are worth pursuing in the interest of protecting what public access exists.
It is different in other states. All of these issues are state-specific, with some similarities.
In Montana the courts have held the position that "easement by necessity" is applicable to a private landowner who holds/acquires property that once was part of a larger parcel through which access was once provided and that parcel owner now has no legal access. Example would be, if I have 2,000 acres and I parcel off 160 acres that has no access, I need to understand that at some future date the owner of that 160 can make a claim against me to allow for access if they have no other options for access. When I sell my remaining 1,840 acres, that potential liability of an access claim goes with the property to the new owner of my 1,840 acres and the person who bought the 160 from me might make a claim against the person who bought the 1,840.
That is why in Montana we order title searches to determine title chains to all large pieces of land our clients might purchase, as we need to determine what possible claims of access could be made in the future and therefore impair the value of the land. When we bring this up with out-of-state buyers, their representatives in their home state are often surprised. Point being, they have never heard of it in their state, yet for large land transactions in Montana it is standard protocol to clear/identify any and all potential claims of easement by necessity.
There are significant hurdles one must clear to meet and "easement by necessity" claim. I was involved in a claim here in Montana, where the easement by necessity principle was argued. It is seldom used as the requirements to make such a claim is very stringent.
That principle cannot be used by the entity that holds the remainder of the parcel, in my example the person who retained the 1,840 acres. Only the subsequent holder of parcels split from the original title chain can make the claim, the person who bought my 160 acres. Being the holder of the original parcel is the situation the US Government would find itself in, as all the lands were once held by the US Government and parceled out under the many different homestead rules.
Given all of that, the principle you mention that applies in VA does not apply in all other states. It would not apply in the case of the Crazy Mountain access problems.
Paying for an easement might be the quickest way to resolve this, but it would also be the lazy way of doing so. Establishing a precedent of allowing landowners to ransom their way around a prescriptive easement certainly doesn't seem like a viable solution to me.
Similar threads
