My East Crazies Trespassing Trial

[RobG]

Actually, the FS tries to negotiate easements when possible to prevent future hassles. In fact a section of the trail already has an easement on it (bought in 1973 for $1). However, I don't know if the FS is allowed to pay significant money for one. A very large percentage of the trails in Montana do not have recorded easements, and if the owner contests it, showing that the trail meets the prescriptive easement criteria is expensive even if the trail is clearly well used and very old (e.g. the Indian Creek trail in the Madison range).

I'm not sure why the landowner hasn't been receptive to an offer or if one has been made. He rents a cabin that is very close to the trail and his guests are under the expectation that the public is not allowed in there. He did mention a land swap as an option.

 

[RobG]

In my research for this trail on of the things that was discussed in the distant past is reciprocity. That is, if the landowner won't allow the public across their private checkerboard, the FS won't allow the landowner to use the trail across FS land. In today's political climate that would start a civil war. I read where the FS wasn't permitting outfitting on these lands if the public isn't allowed to access them, but I don't know if that is current policy.

 

[JDH]

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.

In Indiana, I know if a parcel gets divided and a portion of it becomes inaccessible from a road that an easement is required. I think it is called an "easement of necessity". I don't know what would happen if there are two properties that already have two different landowners.

 

[1_pointer]

In Indiana, I know if a parcel gets divided and a portion of it becomes inaccessible from a road that an easement is required. I think it is called an "easement of necessity". I don't know what would happen if there are two properties that already have two different landowners.

Not sure how the previous plot were split, but the "easement" that was used in the past was not through me. Thanks for the info as that is good to know if I can somehow get a hold of that 40.

 

[RobG]

Another story: my uncle bought some land in the swan valley. He had to travel through another property to get to it and the owner of that property built a pond that blocked the road. He waited too long and lost that access. I believe the landowner is allowing him to build another road, but it is in a very inconvenient spot and will be very expensive. That is why you have to get after these things as soon as you find out the landowner is blocking access.

 

[Cav1]

I'm new to the forum and just saw this. Donation coming from the other side of the Crazies via snail mail...didn't get a donate button on the website.

We all need to thank and support Rob. Unfortunately, except under extraordinary circumstances, the Forest Service will NOT be legally fighting these access battles on behalf of the public. Even the most sympathetic district rangers still have to take orders from above and only fire and bureaucracy can count on always being funded. In Montana, when private landowners cut off access to National Forest lands, to legally settle the issue it will most likely require the county (obviously not in this particular instance), an individual like Rob, or a sportsman group to take each case to court.

 

[teamhoyt]

Rob, how are things coming together on this? Also bump for your cause.

 

[RobG]

Sorry Teamhoyt, I didn't see this. Here's an update I just sent out to my contributor list.

An update.

Donations currently total $7195. I'm floored by the support! The total on my website wasn't being updated due to a minor snafu, but we got that fixed and the total is current. Sorry if you donated and didn't see the number go up.

Things have been slow, but they are ramping up. All the evidence to be used against me and in my defense has been submitted. The prosecution submitted the sheriff's report and trail cam photos, allegedly of me on the premises, but the photos are unclear and dates are wrong. I submitted quite a pile of evidence, mostly obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request by Kat QannaYahu.

All motions related to the case are supposed to be done by Monday and the trail is tentatively set for June 15th. Those dates could change.

Rumors have been floating that I plea bargained. Nope! The county attorney made an offer but it implied I was admitting guilt so I declined.

I hope to be able to talk more freely soon!

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

The trail camera photos should be a moot point if the trail is considered public. I'm hopeful that your defense is stronger towards the fact that the trail is indeed public, and not so heavily casting doubt on the trail camera photo and who it captured (and when).

I know you can't tip your hand, so I eagerly await the outcome of your fight. I wish you the best of luck!

Go get 'em!

 

[Nameless Range]

Trail Cameras up in November?

 

[brownbear932008]

Trail Cameras up in November?

Very good point. Breaking the law possibly but I'm sure the intent of catching game is not there.
I agree with Bugle on the moot point. But if need be it's a good back up argument to have the case dropped.

 

[RobG]

I assumed trail cams were ok on private, but I just noticed the regs don't make the distinction. When faced with the accusation of using the cameras to intimidate hunters the landowner said in writing that they were originally put up to photograph wildlife. I will make a note of that.

 

[MTGomer]

Depending on outcome, this trail sounds like a great hunttalk hike location. Central location and all! Good Luck Rob.