Sen. Burn's Crazy Amendment

[Nemont]

and we pay for the road to be built as well.

Guest Opinion: Crazy amendment would keep public off national forest
By JOHN GIBSON

The Forest Service does not own any land. The agency administers land owned by the people of the United States of America. We, the people, have hired the Forest Service to manage our land, and, over the years, we have directed that agency to manage that land in a certain way.

Theodore Roosevelt set the stage early with the Pinchot Letter. This document states clearly that "These lands are to be devoted to the permanent good of the whole people and not for the temporary benefit of individuals or companies." T.R., our conservation president, saw the value of land within a democracy that belonged to everyone equally and not just the well-to-do or politically connected.

Recently, a controversy has developed regarding access to some of our land along the east side of the Crazy Mountains. The land adjacent the national forest in the Big Elk Canyon area belongs to a large ranch that blocks the boundary to thousands of acres of public land. This situation is typical of the east face of the Crazy Mountains, where only one access road reaches the forest boundary in over 50 miles.

The owners of this ranch have a permit to graze cattle as well as a permit to conduct commercial outfitting for big game on the national forest. They also control use of a road system on public land that can be used only with their permission.

The ranch owners made a request to the Forest Service to grant them an easement for a new road to reach their private ownership to the south. This proposed road would cross national forest land, thereby providing access to a sizable amount of public land that presently has no legal access.

But the ranch owners did not want to grant access to the public on this road or to a private road connecting to it across private land outside the national forest.

Seeking access reciprocity

The Forest Service held out for public access through their policy of "reciprocity": We grant you access to your land and you grant us access to our public land.

Reciprocity is an established Forest Service policy covered under 36 CFR 251.114. The direction states, "A landowner may be required to provide a reciprocal grant across his property when such a reciprocal right is deemed to be necessary for the management of adjacent federal land."

Enter politics. The ranch owners hired a lobbyist to encourage our congressional delegation to intervene on their behalf. It appears that Sen. Max Baucus asked questions of both parties and was satisfied with the answer from the Forest Service. Rep. Dennis Rehberg sent at least two letters with tones that appear to favor the landowner's position.

Burns' appropriation directive

Then Sen. Conrad Burns included an item in an appropriation bill from his Senate committee directing the chief of the Forest Service to accept administrative access only on the Big Elk Canyon proposed road, whereby only Forest Service employees on official business could use the road - not the public.

This would be equivalent to telling a landowner that only his hired hands can use a road to reach his land but not landowner or his family. How do you think that would go over between two landowners in the private sector?

Burns' budget item also states that administrative access is so important to the public interest in the Big Elk Canyon area that the Forest Service should pay for all costs required by the National Environmental Policy Act for the road.

Public comments regarding access to Big Elk Canyon support full public access to public land served by this road. The contention that administrative access, by itself, is in the public interest is pure politics.

Rehberg will have a chance to vote on this budget bill later this fall.

It's time these "good old boy" politicians realized that they can't deal with the Forest Service without dealing with the public. We own the land. They better stop trying to do special favors for political buddies that run counter to public land policy.

John Gibson of Billings is president of the Public Lands Access Association and worked for 34 years with the U.S. Forest Service.

 

[BuzzH]

No surprise Conrad would come up with something that ridiculous...same with Rehberg.

Rehberg had an issue over state lands that was almost as bad as this.

Looks like more letters are in order.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm still trying to figure out the rules/regs regarding easements or ROWs. Definitely dirty business and many high rollers get the road designations changed to suit them.

I didn't know about the Reciprocity rule! I like that. I'm going to see if the BLM has something similar.